REMINDER - There is a meeting for Manchester Township and Manchester village residents to discuss their views and opinions on the AATA Public Transportation proposal that will cost residents upwards of $500,000 over a five year period if our officials do not opt out of this service.
The meeting is this Thursday, September 27th at the Manchester Village Hall, 512 City Street, from 6:30 to 8:30 PM.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
AATA County-wide Transport Proposal - Your Attendance is Vital
The above meeting on September 27th is a vital part of the county-wide transportation proposal being presented to our township government and residents. This proposal will add a significant cost to our township expenditures (potentially well over $500,000 over a five year period, with a minimum proposed cost of $86,000 per year for Manchester residents alone), and thus, affects us all. Your attendance is vital to ask questions and provide feedback on this proposal, and to investigate it's viability for our community as a whole.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Manchester - get your vote on!
Don't forget to stop in at the polls tomorrow, Tuesday, August 7th, and be heard!
Tomorrow's primary election offers us the incredible opportunity to take the leadership of our township into new and exciting directions. Residents can choose to actively preserve the unique rural and agricultural atmosphere that sets our town apart from neighboring communities. Vote to stop endeavors that will alter the characteristics of our small town - say no to Dollar General stores, banquet halls, and new limits on farming activities. Be heard, be active, protect the lifestyle you love, and choose change.
Additionally, tomorrow's election puts a proposal in front of voters to provide additional funding for fire services to cover costs incurred from outside fire departments servicing areas of Manchester Township. This proposal incorporates wording into it that would allow these funds to be distributed in any manner our township board chooses. Unfortunately, it does not mandate that funds will stay with the Manchester fire department. Please make sure to review the wording carefully on this proposal before casting your vote. Manchester loves it's fire fighters, we want to make certain that all funding STAYS with our fire department, and does not get diverted elsewhere. If you own a $200,000 home, this will cost you an additional $650 in higher taxes over the proposed 5 year period. It's a significant amount during tough economic times. We must insure we maintain ethical leadership with integrity to manage our hard-earned tax dollars, and that they actually go where WE choose.
Proposal 1:
Shall Manchester Township impose an increase of up to 0.65 mills ($0.65 per $1,000 of taxable value) in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem taxes within Manchester Township and levy it for 5 years, for the period of 2012 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose to provide fire protection services within Manchester Township, which 0.65 mills increase will raise in the first year the millage is levied an estimated $113,100 of which a portion may be disbursed to such other or fewer local units of government as the Township Board determines appropriate.
Tomorrow's primary election offers us the incredible opportunity to take the leadership of our township into new and exciting directions. Residents can choose to actively preserve the unique rural and agricultural atmosphere that sets our town apart from neighboring communities. Vote to stop endeavors that will alter the characteristics of our small town - say no to Dollar General stores, banquet halls, and new limits on farming activities. Be heard, be active, protect the lifestyle you love, and choose change.
Additionally, tomorrow's election puts a proposal in front of voters to provide additional funding for fire services to cover costs incurred from outside fire departments servicing areas of Manchester Township. This proposal incorporates wording into it that would allow these funds to be distributed in any manner our township board chooses. Unfortunately, it does not mandate that funds will stay with the Manchester fire department. Please make sure to review the wording carefully on this proposal before casting your vote. Manchester loves it's fire fighters, we want to make certain that all funding STAYS with our fire department, and does not get diverted elsewhere. If you own a $200,000 home, this will cost you an additional $650 in higher taxes over the proposed 5 year period. It's a significant amount during tough economic times. We must insure we maintain ethical leadership with integrity to manage our hard-earned tax dollars, and that they actually go where WE choose.
Proposal 1:
Shall Manchester Township impose an increase of up to 0.65 mills ($0.65 per $1,000 of taxable value) in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem taxes within Manchester Township and levy it for 5 years, for the period of 2012 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose to provide fire protection services within Manchester Township, which 0.65 mills increase will raise in the first year the millage is levied an estimated $113,100 of which a portion may be disbursed to such other or fewer local units of government as the Township Board determines appropriate.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ethics, Morals, and Candidates
With the pending election, it seems the closer we get to the August 7th primary, the more our e-mail box is filling up. Today's Manchester Enterprise ( click here for link ) has prompted a flurry of activity. Please note that we discussed putting similar opinion pieces out there in detail, and agree with the responder that this information has been out in the public for general comment for an incredibly long period of time. It seems everyone in the township is aware of this, but none of our officials, news sources, or the candidates themselves have addressed it. What are your thoughts?
Below is a partial quote from the letter in question submitted to the editor of the Manchester Enterprise. Out of respect for copyright issues and the source, we ask that you follow the link to view the post in it's entirety below:
Link to original post here
"To the Editor:
I have served on the Manchester township board as a trustee for eight years, and before that on the planning commission. Due to my involvement in other community activities, I have decided not to run for trustee again, though I do plan to continue staying informed and will consider becoming involved in the planning commission again. Our current township supervisor, Ron Mann, is retiring, and for the first time in many years there is competition for the position of supervisor. I believe there are only two candidates in the running, as a third person stated that they have withdrawn their petition, leaving Les Kopka and Gene DeRossett in competition for the seat.
Sincerely,
Sybil Kolon"
The response below was submitted to The Manchester Enterprise and to us by a mutual reader. At the time of this being shared, this response had been posted to The Enterprise's comment section. We must note again that this information has been presented to us for months by numerous sources, and that candidate Kopka has had ample opportunity to address these concerns with the voting public. We are posting this here as public opinion has presented it to us on numerous occasions. We invite candidate Kopka to provide a written response. Additionally, contrary to Sybil Kolon's remark above, Gene DeRossett is a long time resident of Manchester.
In a township where this particular candidate's name (Les/Leslie Kopka) is linked heavily to numerous rumors of embezzlement and misconduct as part of our daily vernacular, I find it incredibly offensive that an elected official would endorse a candidate who has publicly opted to not avoid even the hint of impropriety associated with his name and conduct. Not only has Mr. DeRossett been to the township board meetings, he has also been in attendance at the planning commission meetings. You, Ms. Kolon, have not been to one planning commission meeting in 2012, so you are hardly an expert on who has been in attendance at what meetings. I urge readers to explore the township's board and planning commission meeting minutes to become educated on the issues plaguing Mr. Kopka, his integrity, his history as a planning commissioner appointed to protect the interests of the residents of our township, and his candidacy for township supervisor.
~ ManchesterTwpResident
Below is a partial quote from the letter in question submitted to the editor of the Manchester Enterprise. Out of respect for copyright issues and the source, we ask that you follow the link to view the post in it's entirety below:
Link to original post here
"To the Editor:
I have served on the Manchester township board as a trustee for eight years, and before that on the planning commission. Due to my involvement in other community activities, I have decided not to run for trustee again, though I do plan to continue staying informed and will consider becoming involved in the planning commission again. Our current township supervisor, Ron Mann, is retiring, and for the first time in many years there is competition for the position of supervisor. I believe there are only two candidates in the running, as a third person stated that they have withdrawn their petition, leaving Les Kopka and Gene DeRossett in competition for the seat.
Sincerely,
Sybil Kolon"
The response below was submitted to The Manchester Enterprise and to us by a mutual reader. At the time of this being shared, this response had been posted to The Enterprise's comment section. We must note again that this information has been presented to us for months by numerous sources, and that candidate Kopka has had ample opportunity to address these concerns with the voting public. We are posting this here as public opinion has presented it to us on numerous occasions. We invite candidate Kopka to provide a written response. Additionally, contrary to Sybil Kolon's remark above, Gene DeRossett is a long time resident of Manchester.
In a township where this particular candidate's name (Les/Leslie Kopka) is linked heavily to numerous rumors of embezzlement and misconduct as part of our daily vernacular, I find it incredibly offensive that an elected official would endorse a candidate who has publicly opted to not avoid even the hint of impropriety associated with his name and conduct. Not only has Mr. DeRossett been to the township board meetings, he has also been in attendance at the planning commission meetings. You, Ms. Kolon, have not been to one planning commission meeting in 2012, so you are hardly an expert on who has been in attendance at what meetings. I urge readers to explore the township's board and planning commission meeting minutes to become educated on the issues plaguing Mr. Kopka, his integrity, his history as a planning commissioner appointed to protect the interests of the residents of our township, and his candidacy for township supervisor.
~ ManchesterTwpResident
The Bait and Switch, Planning Commission Style!
This
is a reminder that there is a Manchester Planning Commission meeting
this evening at the town hall board room beginning at 8 PM. There are
several interesting items on the agenda for this evening. You can
access it HERE.
As you can see from the agenda, they will be discussing the Tracey Road lawsuit, "interpretation" of 5.03 of the A/R zoning ordinance, and a new item, "Availability of documents used by Planning Commission during meetings for public viewing". As many of you know, a very specific memo authored by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, which was referenced heavily in last month's meeting regarding the "interpretation" and proposed revisions of the A/R zoning, section 5.03, which prompted the Tracey Road lawsuit (in addition to the misconduct by several members of that planning commission), was committed to be made available to the public as part of the draft minutes. Even though this was confirmed several times within the meeting and should be reflected in the meeting minutes, that document was not and has not been provided to the public. That document provides new verbiage to open up Manchester's A/R zoning district to banquet halls, and will be expected to pass without a strong showing of opposition from the public. It is vital that you be in attendance tonight, and bring several Manchester residents with you as a public show of opposition.
Lastly, next week's primary election on Tuesday, August 7th will be the election in which we choose a township supervisor. Les Kopka is pushing very hard at the planning commission level to push these proposed ordinance changes through - without regard for public input or opinion - to accommodate the request of one private citizen. It is vitally important that we have strong voter turnout for that primary, if only to elect change for Manchester in the township supervisor position. Mark your calendars to vote and commit to getting others to the polls.
As you can see from the agenda, they will be discussing the Tracey Road lawsuit, "interpretation" of 5.03 of the A/R zoning ordinance, and a new item, "Availability of documents used by Planning Commission during meetings for public viewing". As many of you know, a very specific memo authored by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, which was referenced heavily in last month's meeting regarding the "interpretation" and proposed revisions of the A/R zoning, section 5.03, which prompted the Tracey Road lawsuit (in addition to the misconduct by several members of that planning commission), was committed to be made available to the public as part of the draft minutes. Even though this was confirmed several times within the meeting and should be reflected in the meeting minutes, that document was not and has not been provided to the public. That document provides new verbiage to open up Manchester's A/R zoning district to banquet halls, and will be expected to pass without a strong showing of opposition from the public. It is vital that you be in attendance tonight, and bring several Manchester residents with you as a public show of opposition.
Lastly, next week's primary election on Tuesday, August 7th will be the election in which we choose a township supervisor. Les Kopka is pushing very hard at the planning commission level to push these proposed ordinance changes through - without regard for public input or opinion - to accommodate the request of one private citizen. It is vitally important that we have strong voter turnout for that primary, if only to elect change for Manchester in the township supervisor position. Mark your calendars to vote and commit to getting others to the polls.
Friday, July 27, 2012
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Support Gene DeRossett for Manchester Township Supervisor
Two life-long Manchester residents explain why they support DeRossett in his candidacy for township supervisor:
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/07/26/opinion/doc50118e71d6b61805206750.txt
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/07/26/opinion/doc50118e71d6b61805206750.txt
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Balancing Act
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
The answer: it doesn't.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Lesson in Futility: The Manchester Joint Planning Commission
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Manchester - Washtenaw County's New Banquet Hall Capital?
They're at it again.
The Manchester Planning Commission has requested a proposal from contracted planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, to change the wording in Manchester Township's A/R zoning ordinance, section 5.03 (Follow this link and go to section 5.03 to read it as it exists today beginning on page 43.), which would expressly allow banquet halls as a conditional use within the zoning ordinance. This move comes on the heels of the Planning Commission's March 1st vote to allow a banquet hall under the undefined use of "country club house" in the ordinance, despite opposition from over 60 residents, as advised by Carlisle/Wortman planning consultant Andrea Bibby. That decision resulted in a large group of residents filing a lawsuit against the planning commission and the township over the mishandling, misconduct, ordinance violations, and Open Meeting Act violations associated with the acceptance and erroneous approval of the conditional use permit application submitted by Dan and Carol Huntsbarger for a banquet hall facility at 13291 Tracey Road. The applicants for the permit have since requested that it be revoked, and stated publicly that they will not be seeking approval to use the property in question as a banquet hall. However, construction and facility improvements continue on the property and appear to be in accordance with the planning commission's latest move. Area residents have speculated that this has been part of the plan for the project since the March 1st meeting, and have long questioned the incentive behind planning commission chairperson, Les Kopka's, motivation to push an approval through despite such strong opposition by township residents.
The new proposal from Carlisle/Wortman offers several options to the planning commission, the first of which would simply change the wording in the A/R zoning ordinance, section 5.03 item H, from "country club house" to "banquet hall". This would allow anyone within the A/R zoning districts to apply for a conditional use permit for banquet hall purposes, opening up everyone in the township owning property in an A/R district the potential to operate, or be forced to live with the operations of, a banquet hall in an area historically used for agricultural and rural purposes. Curiously, this is offered as the first, and presumably, most favored of the options presented by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, who previously dubbed the Huntsbarger project a "country club house", "special event facility", and now, a banquet hall. Other options presented on the list include striking this allowance from the zoning all together, which seems incredibly unlikely given the determination shown by Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, planning commissioner and township board trustee candidate Pete Stumpo, and planning commission chair and township supervisor candidate, Les Kopka, to see that the Huntsbarger project gains approval at any cost. While no dollar amount has been released for the total expenditures by the township for this particular conditional use permit application, approval process, and subsequent proposals and changes from Carlisle/Wortman, it is certain that the township has wasted a significant amount of time, resources, and township tax dollars pursuing the approval and changes required to allow the Huntsbarger's private venture.
It remains unclear why such a project, which will benefit only the applicants, and will severely disturb the quality of life for area residents, is being treated as a priority by our appointed and contracted representatives in the face of strong, consistent opposition by Manchester residents. While the initial protest of 60+ people was comprised primarily of residents in the direct area of impact for the Huntsbarger project, the new proposal affects a much greater number of Manchester residents and is likely to produce a far greater demonstration of disapproval. This is a very odd move by commissioner Stumpo and chairperson Kopka, who are both seeking election in other offices outside of the planning commission.
Below are links to the Planning Commission's March 1st meeting minutes, and the audio from July's planning commission meeting where these changes were discussed - it's a must listen for everyone within the township.
Find the Manchester Township Planning Commission meeting minutes here (NOTE: meeting minute availability is limited due to township personnel constraints)
Listen to the full July 12, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting here - how your planning commission and advisers plan to allow banquet hall facilities in your neighborhood.
Related links:
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/03/02/manchester_enterprise/news/doc4f50fa306e638277268641.txt
http://www.wireenterprise.blogspot.com/2012/03/strange-vote-at-manchester-township.html
Friday, July 20, 2012
Concerned Residents Question Township Supervisor Candidates
Despite the sweltering heat, over 50 Manchester residents attended the Candidate's Forum in Carr Park on Tuesday, July 17. All of the candidates for Manchester Township's elected offices were invited to attend. Those present included Gene DeRossett and Leslie Kopka, both running for township supervisor, and several candidates for township trustee positions: Jim Schiel, John Seefeld, and Pete Stumpo. The current township clerk, Ann Becktel, township treasurer, Judith Huber, and trustee Carl Macomber declined to attend for unspecified reasons. Current trustee, Lyle Widmeyer was unable to attend due to health reasons.
The biggest draw of the evening was the question and answer period for the township supervisor candidates. Mr. Kopka cited his biggest qualifying strength for this position as his experience on Manchester's Planning Commission, a recently tumultuous appointment that has resulted in local residents filing litigation against the township as a direct result of Mr. Kopka's conduct on that commission. In contrast, Gene DeRossett presents his vast history of public service, experience in all three branches of government, and extensive network of contacts from serving in and around the Manchester area as a solid background for taking the township into new and positive directions.
Though none of the specifics regarding the challenges of Mr. Kopka's present term on the planning commission were raised as a part of the forum, Kopka referred to them in several of his responses, highlighting the contentious nature that he has fostered between himself and the public at the monthly Planning Commission meetings.
Q: How would you handle conflict resolution on issues that arise, and minimize personal bias as supervisor?
Kopka: "Well, I'm sure that is referring to the Dan Huntsbarger property project. Uh, that is something that has been ongoing for...since November. Uh, that is...that really does not go through the township...uh, supervisor's office. It's handled by the planning commission, and uh, what we have in our zoning ordinances...some of the ordinances are extremely outdated and need to be updated, and that's something that we've been talking about in the planning commission. Um, the issue is, do you do spot updates, or do a major re-do, re-make of the ordinance, and then are you back to the cost, and it'll take a lot of time to do that, and it'll take a lot of money to do that. And, uh, with as tight as things are, it's a problem. We're basically fixing the leaks as they appear. I mean, that's about all we can do right now."
DeRossett approached the question in a completely different manner, "The question was how do you resolve conflict? I think the most important thing is that you listen, you gather all the information, and then if you are undecided you do nothing and gather additional information, and you make sure that everyone is heard, and all issues are vented, and that you're able to make good, informed decisions. It's about listening, and it's about bringing people together to resolve conflicts that you might have."
This set the tone for the remainder of the event, with Kopka stating numerous times, "It's a problem", but presenting no clear-cut platform for addressing issues which were raised, and DeRossett giving examples of how he plans on approaching the issues, will encourage residents to re-claim an active role in township government, and will use his previous public service experience to benefit the community. For an informal event with a casual debate, one would expect that the candidates would be in tune with the issues that concern residents the most. Kopka left residents wondering exactly which meetings he's been present at, let alone acted as chair on, while DeRossett seemed determined to insure that he understands the concerns and where they stem from.
The biggest draw of the evening was the question and answer period for the township supervisor candidates. Mr. Kopka cited his biggest qualifying strength for this position as his experience on Manchester's Planning Commission, a recently tumultuous appointment that has resulted in local residents filing litigation against the township as a direct result of Mr. Kopka's conduct on that commission. In contrast, Gene DeRossett presents his vast history of public service, experience in all three branches of government, and extensive network of contacts from serving in and around the Manchester area as a solid background for taking the township into new and positive directions.
Though none of the specifics regarding the challenges of Mr. Kopka's present term on the planning commission were raised as a part of the forum, Kopka referred to them in several of his responses, highlighting the contentious nature that he has fostered between himself and the public at the monthly Planning Commission meetings.
Q: How would you handle conflict resolution on issues that arise, and minimize personal bias as supervisor?
Kopka: "Well, I'm sure that is referring to the Dan Huntsbarger property project. Uh, that is something that has been ongoing for...since November. Uh, that is...that really does not go through the township...uh, supervisor's office. It's handled by the planning commission, and uh, what we have in our zoning ordinances...some of the ordinances are extremely outdated and need to be updated, and that's something that we've been talking about in the planning commission. Um, the issue is, do you do spot updates, or do a major re-do, re-make of the ordinance, and then are you back to the cost, and it'll take a lot of time to do that, and it'll take a lot of money to do that. And, uh, with as tight as things are, it's a problem. We're basically fixing the leaks as they appear. I mean, that's about all we can do right now."
DeRossett approached the question in a completely different manner, "The question was how do you resolve conflict? I think the most important thing is that you listen, you gather all the information, and then if you are undecided you do nothing and gather additional information, and you make sure that everyone is heard, and all issues are vented, and that you're able to make good, informed decisions. It's about listening, and it's about bringing people together to resolve conflicts that you might have."
This set the tone for the remainder of the event, with Kopka stating numerous times, "It's a problem", but presenting no clear-cut platform for addressing issues which were raised, and DeRossett giving examples of how he plans on approaching the issues, will encourage residents to re-claim an active role in township government, and will use his previous public service experience to benefit the community. For an informal event with a casual debate, one would expect that the candidates would be in tune with the issues that concern residents the most. Kopka left residents wondering exactly which meetings he's been present at, let alone acted as chair on, while DeRossett seemed determined to insure that he understands the concerns and where they stem from.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Candidates Forum - Mark Your Calendars!
A Candidates Forum that has been scheduled
for Tuesday, July 17th at Carr Park at 7:00 PM. All of the candidates
for our township elected offices have been invited for a meet and greet
and a question and answer session. This is a terrific opportunity to
become acquainted with the individuals who are interested in
representing your interests and the future of our township.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Planning Commission Meeting, Thursday, June 7th
Thursday's meeting starts at 7:30 PM as there are two items scheduled for a public hearing, followed by the regular planning commission meeting. If you have not been able to attend a planning commission meeting, we strongly encourage that you do. There are several items on the agenda that affect the township as a whole, and as residents, we're finding that the more meetings we attend, the more issues there are that require the time and attention of Manchester residents.
This is also a good opportunity to become acquainted with planning commission appointees who will be running for elected offices in our township government. There is nothing quite like seeing candidates in action to ascertain their qualifications and deciding who will (and will not) earn your votes.
Here is a copy of the proposed agenda that has been posted to the township's web site:
A. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIR
B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 05/03/2012 Regular Meeting
Close Regular Meeting and Open Public Hearing
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Close Public Hearing and Re-Open Regular Meeting
E. PUBLIC COMMENT
F. REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
1. Report of Chairperson
2. Report of Township Board Representative
3. Report of Zoning Board of Appeals
4. Report of Planning Consultant
5. Reports of Committees
a. SWWCOG
6. Correspondence
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
H. NEW BUSINESS
1. Change date for July meeting??
I. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION
J. PUBLIC COMMENT
K. NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting – Thursday, 07/05/2012 - 8:00 p.m.
On Hold Items:
MCJPC Future Land Use Plan Discussion/MCJPC 425 Agreement Areas Discussion /AR Rezoning Discussion
New Commercial Minimum Acreage Discussion
L. ADJOURNMENT
This is also a good opportunity to become acquainted with planning commission appointees who will be running for elected offices in our township government. There is nothing quite like seeing candidates in action to ascertain their qualifications and deciding who will (and will not) earn your votes.
Here is a copy of the proposed agenda that has been posted to the township's web site:
A. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIR
B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 05/03/2012 Regular Meeting
Close Regular Meeting and Open Public Hearing
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Amend Section 2.03, Definitions for lots, lot measurements, yards, lot lines, waterfront lots, and lot measurements; amend Section 2.03 to add definitions of “Animals” amend Section 4.04 (G) to add setback measurements for waterfront lots for all zoning districts; amend Section 5.04(B) to change description for lot width measurements in the Rural Agricultural District (AR); amend Section 5.04(E) to add reference to waterfront lot measurements in the Rural Agricultural District (AR); amend Section 6.04(B) to change description for lot width measurements in the Low Residential District (LR); amend Section 6.04 to add reference for waterfront lot measurements in the Low Residential District (LR); and proposed new Section 16.23 Regulation of Animals
Close Public Hearing and Re-Open Regular Meeting
E. PUBLIC COMMENT
F. REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
1. Report of Chairperson
2. Report of Township Board Representative
3. Report of Zoning Board of Appeals
4. Report of Planning Consultant
5. Reports of Committees
a. SWWCOG
6. Correspondence
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
- MCJPC
- Ordinance Setback Revisions Discussion / Front/Back of Lot Language for Lake Property
- Dangerous Building Ordinance
- Animal Regulation Discussion
- Section Review
- Tracey Road Lawsuit
- Road Ordinance - Oil and Gas Wells
- Doan Property
H. NEW BUSINESS
1. Change date for July meeting??
I. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION
J. PUBLIC COMMENT
K. NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting – Thursday, 07/05/2012 - 8:00 p.m.
On Hold Items:
MCJPC Future Land Use Plan Discussion/MCJPC 425 Agreement Areas Discussion /AR Rezoning Discussion
New Commercial Minimum Acreage Discussion
L. ADJOURNMENT
Monday, May 7, 2012
Wanted: Township Supervisor
The ideal candidate will be dedicated to representing the interests and needs of township residents. A strong desire to implement policies that will insure transparency in township government and operations is a plus. Motivation to preserve the unique qualities of Manchester's rural heritage is vital to the position, as is common sense, ethics, and an upstanding moral character. Must have excellent communications skills, a sincere desire to work with constituents, and a genuine interest in thwarting political decisions serving special interests over the needs of township residents. Pay is $23,500, but may be increased if applicant chooses to perform additional duties as available. Hours are flexible, and position may allow candidate the ability to maintain outside employment. Packets to apply for this position must be completed and turned in by May 15th, and are available at the Manchester Township Hall located at 275 S. Macomb, Manchester, MI 4815. Phone: (734)428-7090.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Meetings Reminder
The Planning Commission meets tonight at 8 PM in the town hall board room. An agenda for this evening's meeting can be found HERE.
The township board meets on Tuesday, May 8th, also in the town hall board room.
With elections coming up, it is imperative that we pay close attention to our township government and the candidates who are running for office or are appointed to represent us.
The township board meets on Tuesday, May 8th, also in the town hall board room.
With elections coming up, it is imperative that we pay close attention to our township government and the candidates who are running for office or are appointed to represent us.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Editorial: Manchester Township Planning Officials Ignore the Will of the People
A letter to the editor at AnnArbor.com from a long time Manchester resident: click here.
Residents file lawsuit against Township and Township Planning Commission
Click here to read the story in The Manchester Enterprise: Lawsuit filed by residents over conditional use permit approved last month
Friday, March 30, 2012
REMINDER: Mark your calendars.
Our next planning commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM in the Township Hall Board Room.
Our next township board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM in the Township Hall Board Room.
See you there!
Our next township board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM in the Township Hall Board Room.
See you there!
Monday, March 19, 2012
Editorial: Conditional Use Permit Was Injustice to Democracy
Read one resident's opinion on how our Planning Commission failed us miserably here .
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Are you just now finding out about the banquet hall?
If you pass by this property occasionally, and would have been at the January "public hearing" had the required signage been posted, your rights to speak out against this were violated. You may request signage be posted for 21 days and a new, valid public hearing be scheduled.
Per our existing ordinances, a 4 X 4 foot sign is required to inform the public residing in the vicinity of the property that a conditional use permit has been applied for. Signage has never been posted, and as a result, many residents are just now finding out about this conditional use permit application. Ordinance # 73 requires signage be posted in accordance with Section 19.03 D on page 159 . If this has not been complied with, it constitutes grounds for adjourning and rescheduling the public hearing. It was never done, and therefore, there has never been a proper public hearing. Only a handful of people were notified by mail, and even this was not done prior to the required 15 day notice.
If you fit the criteria above, attend the planning commission meeting tonight, March 1 at 7:30 PM, and DEMAND that an appropriate public hearing be held. They are trying to slide this under the radar of the public, and betting that we're not watching. There are lots of questions that must be answered - why are our representatives sanctioning a use that clearly does not fit in our zoning code, and why are they trying so desperately to keep you from finding out about it?
Per our existing ordinances, a 4 X 4 foot sign is required to inform the public residing in the vicinity of the property that a conditional use permit has been applied for. Signage has never been posted, and as a result, many residents are just now finding out about this conditional use permit application. Ordinance # 73 requires signage be posted in accordance with Section 19.03 D on page 159 . If this has not been complied with, it constitutes grounds for adjourning and rescheduling the public hearing. It was never done, and therefore, there has never been a proper public hearing. Only a handful of people were notified by mail, and even this was not done prior to the required 15 day notice.
If you fit the criteria above, attend the planning commission meeting tonight, March 1 at 7:30 PM, and DEMAND that an appropriate public hearing be held. They are trying to slide this under the radar of the public, and betting that we're not watching. There are lots of questions that must be answered - why are our representatives sanctioning a use that clearly does not fit in our zoning code, and why are they trying so desperately to keep you from finding out about it?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Why your presence at the March 1st meeting is so important
The vote by the Manchester Planning Commission on this conditional use permit has been tabled until the March 1st meeting. This means that a vote COULD happen on this date. We need as many area residents as possible to take action and voice their opposition to this IN PERSON and IN WRITING. There are numerous reasons why a facility like this is undesirable in the proposed location: a significant increase in traffic seven days per week, a significant impact to rural roads that are not designed to support traffic generated from a seven day per week facility like this (aren't our roads in bad enough shape?), noise in the form of loud music, partying/shouting, the environmental impact to our area from potentially hundreds of people per day passing through and using our resources, littering our roads, trespassing, wandering inebriated people, and the negative effect that having a banquet/rental hall in close proximity to our/your property will have on our property values (THINK: would you purchase a home next to a seven-day per week banquet hall, operating during prime outdoor activity time? Not likely!)
In addition, there are numerous reasons that a banquet hall does NOT qualify for a conditional use permit under the existing Rural/Agricultural zoning that is currently in place. The owners of the property and some people on our planning commission keep re-naming the facility in an attempt to detract from the simple fact that a banquet hall does not qualify. In the first public notice this facility was referred to as a "special events facility". It has since evolved into a "country club house". What is a country club house, you ask? Funny you should ask...there isn't a definition for it, nor is one provided in our zoning. I've searched the web trying to figure out exactly what a "country club house"is, and no one has an answer. Not even Miriam Webster. What we do know is that the primary and principle reason for the proposed business and it's location lies in the selling of food and (alcoholic) beverages. Under the zoning, food and beverage sales MUST be incidental and accessory, as in selling a hot dog on a golf course (where the primary function is golf), NOT the main purpose of the business. Otherwise, we could all open restaurants and banquet halls. The closest I could get, and it is still a stretch, is that maybe you could call a home that is located in a private community on a golf course that is part of an exclusive country club a "country club house". No matter what they call this, it is still a banquet hall, with food and beverage sales the primary source of business and income. (I'll expound on that later with links to the specific ordinances - you can find all of them on the township's web site here.
If you haven't already contacted the Manchester Planning Commission and our township officials, please do so. Their contact information is available at the township's web site (see link above). Your voice matters, but only if people hear you! Be heard.
In addition, there are numerous reasons that a banquet hall does NOT qualify for a conditional use permit under the existing Rural/Agricultural zoning that is currently in place. The owners of the property and some people on our planning commission keep re-naming the facility in an attempt to detract from the simple fact that a banquet hall does not qualify. In the first public notice this facility was referred to as a "special events facility". It has since evolved into a "country club house". What is a country club house, you ask? Funny you should ask...there isn't a definition for it, nor is one provided in our zoning. I've searched the web trying to figure out exactly what a "country club house"is, and no one has an answer. Not even Miriam Webster. What we do know is that the primary and principle reason for the proposed business and it's location lies in the selling of food and (alcoholic) beverages. Under the zoning, food and beverage sales MUST be incidental and accessory, as in selling a hot dog on a golf course (where the primary function is golf), NOT the main purpose of the business. Otherwise, we could all open restaurants and banquet halls. The closest I could get, and it is still a stretch, is that maybe you could call a home that is located in a private community on a golf course that is part of an exclusive country club a "country club house". No matter what they call this, it is still a banquet hall, with food and beverage sales the primary source of business and income. (I'll expound on that later with links to the specific ordinances - you can find all of them on the township's web site here.
If you haven't already contacted the Manchester Planning Commission and our township officials, please do so. Their contact information is available at the township's web site (see link above). Your voice matters, but only if people hear you! Be heard.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
A Few Reasons to Oppose the Conditional Use Permit - the beginning (updates and additional info to come)
Neighbors,
As you know by now, the property on Tracey Road which was previously owned by Connie Schill has been sold. The new owners have applied for a Conditional Use Permit to turn this property into an event/banquet hall/party barn facility and use it to host events such as corporate functions, weddings, showers, banquets, etc. Allowing the use of this property for such purposes will have detrimental effects for local residents such as: road conditions and road maintenance, noise, increased traffic and usage, potential for drunk/disorderly conduct, trespassing, litter, negative effects on property values (which have already been affected by a downturned economy), and numerous other factors which have yet to be identified.
Residents in this area will see absolutely no social, economic, or environmental benefits by allowing this conditional use permit to be granted. In fact, you will be inconvenienced and may realize negative repercussions in all three of these areas as a direct result of such a facility being allowed in our neighborhood. For this reason, the residents living in this area must work together to voice their opposition to this facility being allowed.
There are many factors to be considered when assessing the value or detriment a facility like this will add to a quiet community. These are just a few things to ask yourself and the planning commission. After reviewing some of the more prevalent concerns, you probably have your own unique concerns to add to this list:
- Is a traffic study being conducted? Do the Huntsbargers have a viable plan to subsidize road maintenance costs and the labor necessary to maintain Kirk and Tracey roads due to increased traffic as a result of their proposed facility? Do they anticipate that the county will increase the frequency of road maintenance to accommodate their facility’s traffic, and will they, the township, or the county pay for more frequent maintenance? Have they approached the county to discuss this? Do they have a contact person at the township or county level who will commit to this? Increased traffic means more potholes, more ripples/washboard effect, more litter, and more dust for residents to contend with. Their plan is to route ALL traffic for this location down Kirk and Tracey Roads (all incoming traffic will be directed from M-52 onto Kirk Road). These roads were not designed to support anything other than a small amount of residential and agricultural traffic. Residents in close proximity to this facility will have to deal with the Huntsbarger’s guests turning around in their driveways, impeding access to their homes, and increasing traffic exponentially during events.
- How long will it take for police to respond to calls? Who is responsible for responding to calls? (Michigan State Police historically respond to calls out here – we can expect at least a 20+ minute response time.) How is security to be managed?
- Is a liquor license being granted? Will alcohol be served?
- If the property is to be used for business purposes, does this pose the need for re-zoning? Will the property be zoned commercial? Should it be? How does this affect surrounding properties? Does this open the way for additional large scale commercial enterprises?
- Has an environmental study been done to determine the negative impacts to our water table? What are the implications of potentially hundreds of additional people utilizing the limited resources of this area? Has the issue of existing environmental hazards that may exist on the property been thoroughly investigated? Are there additional environmental factors that should be considered?
- What are the plans for construction? This property does not currently have appropriate facilities for several hundred guests, much less 20 people in its current state. New construction for additional facilities will be needed, or significant construction to alter existing buildings must take place – kitchen facilities, bathroom facilities, etc. How is this going to be handled? If a conditional use permit is granted, this will become a significant issue, and surrounding neighbors will have little if any say in size and capacity at that point. Will blueprints and/or construction plans be subject to approval? If so, who must they be submitted to?
- Is an economical study being conducted to assess the negative financial repercussions such a facility would have on property values in the vicinity? Are there other economic factors that will have an impact on residents that should be considered? An event facility would likely deter prospective buyers should anyone decide to sell their property, and as a direct result, negatively affect property values.
- How will a noise study be conducted? Will the surrounding residents be notified when and where any noise studies will be conducted? Residents should be given ample notice so that they may assess noise levels while studies are being conducted. How will the Huntsbargers, township, and law enforcement deal with complaints of excessive noise? How will they handle guests who exceed an accepted noise level during events? How will they reach an agreement with surrounding residents about what constitutes excessive noise? In an area where the sound of frogs is the loudest noise heard on a spring, summer, and autumn evening, this is destined to be an area of continual contention.
- Will the township conduct thorough socio-economic and environmental studies on behalf of surrounding residents to assess the impact of this facility on all social, economic, and environmental issues?
- Finally, if the planning commission grants this special use permit despite the documented opposition by a large number of the surrounding residents, can this decision be appealed? What are the administrative steps necessary to have this permit revoked? What if the stipulations are violated? What is the recourse then? Who would be responsible for overseeing the Huntsbarger’s compliance and will be the liaison confirming this with surrounding residents?
To date, outside of the filed application and a hand-drawn sketch roughly showing where a proposed parking lot may be located, none of these important facts have been addressed. Vague generalities have been used to describe intended usage, capacity, and potential future use. Concerned residents realize that if a conditional use permit is granted, it is then a very short walk towards events every Friday and Saturday night that can have hundreds of attendees. Additionally, if the permit is granted, what is to keep this in-check? Capacity and frequency of events can easily be pushed and increased. We contend that the plans for this property are being downplayed now in the planning and formal approval stages, and are bigger and more intrusive than we imagine (or are being told) right now.
You are encouraged to call the Manchester Planning Commission and voice your concerns at (734)428-7090. You may also write the Manchester Planning Commission, Attn: Leslie Kopka, via the Manchester Township Clerk, 275 S. Macomb, Manchester
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)