City
of South Lyon
February
9, 2006
Chairman
Morelli called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
All
present recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Present:
Commissioners Lewandowski, Bradley, Mosier, Culbertson,
Weipert, Tartaglia,
Morelli, and Lanam. There is one vacancy.
Also
present were Chuck Cairns (Planning Consultant), Kristen Cunningham, Director of
Community and Economic Development, and Parvin Lee (City Attorney)
Approval
of Agenda:
Motion by Culbertson, supported by Lewandowski
Vote
Motion Carried Unanimously
Approval
of Minutes:
Motion
by Bradley, supported by Mosier
To
approve of the Minutes for January 12, 2006 as amended.
No
public comment.
Morelli
explained the rules of the public hearings.
Public
Hearing – Consideration of Section 102-308 2nd Floor Apartments in
the Central Business District
Hearing
opened at 7:02pm.
No
public comment.
Hearing
closed at 7:03pm.
Morelli
asked if everyone read the materials. Weipert asked what would happen with the
outdoor cafes. Cunningham stated the cafes would still be approved by the city
manager. Morelli asked if this
applies to the central business district only. Cunningham replied that is
correct. Morelli asked if new construction would come before the Commission.
Cunningham replied yes. Weipert asked why the city manager approves the outdoor
cafes. Cairns stated he did not know. Weipert asked if items #2 and 3 need
different headings. Cunningham did not think so. Cairns offered to add a line to
clarify. Everyone agreed.
Motion
by Bradley, supported by Lewandowski
To
recommend approval to the City Council of Section 102-308 2nd Floor
Apartments in the Central Business District
Vote
MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Public
Hearing – Consideration of expiration of approved site plans – Section
102-131 & Section 102-391
Hearing
opened at 7:14pm.
No
public comment.
Hearing
closed at 7:15pm.
Culbertson
asked, in section G at the end of the first page, why it states the preliminary
will expire in one year. Cairns explained it is an action you taken so they can
not start construction. If the preliminary can expire it prevents the planning
process from running on and on. Morelli asked if the preliminary could be
extended. Cunningham replied yes, the applicant would need to a write a letter
asking for one. Culbertson asked if a site were to take more than one-year are
the final plans dependent on any changes in the ordinances. Cairns stated if it
were longer than a year and have an extension but in that time changes were made
to the standards they would have to revise the preliminary and have it approved.
Weipert asked what if the applicant did not have an extension. Lee stated the
law is split. If it is the standards that have changed, the new standards could
be imposed. If it is the zoning, then it is unclear.
Culbertson
asked what constitutes no lapse with new construction. Cairns explained if the
site is under construction then the permit expires one year after the last
inspection. Lee stated if a year passes between two approvals that would be a
lapse.
Culbertson
asked why the fee for the expiration may be waived. Cairns stated it would it
should stay objective. Weipert noted it states if there are no changes it still
has to be reviewed. Lee stated he would like this to be changed. The language
needs to be more precise. Cairns noted he could rewrite it. Cunningham stated if
there is a review then there is no waiver. Lee stated he would like good cause
shown.
Culbertson
asked if it should read that new fees should be charged. Cairns commented the
first three lines could be eliminated so it reads the fees are the same for the
review of an initial site plan review. Morelli noted that sounds like it is not
the current fees, he suggested taking out “initial” and making it “current
site plan review”.
There
was a general discussion regarding how the fee language should read and when it
would be applicable.
Lewandowski
asked if the planned development zoning rule applies if portions are undeveloped
or not finished. Cairns stated it would remain in effect until finished or until
some one presents a plan change.
Weipert
asked if applicants could show up several years after site plan approval and ask
for it to be approved again. Cunningham stated they would be subject to these
rules. Weipert asked what if the applicant had a variance. Lee answered
variances have a one-year expiration.
There
was a general discussion regarding Planned Developments issues that could arise
with expirations and changes in ownership.
Morelli
asked if there needs to be an expiration date on preliminary site plans or would
they expire simply because of age. Cairns stated they do after one year.
Cunningham stated they would have to be allowed to come back.
Morelli
asked if a property that qualifies for a cluster but is not developed would have
to be re-approved for cluster after a period of time. Cunningham stated the
plans would have to be re-approved but the property has already qualified for
the cluster. Culbertson asked what happens should the cluster standards change.
Cunningham answered the applicant would have to meet the new standards.
Lee
stated his office felt the ordinance should be subject to use, otherwise this is
just a new level of bureaucratic
issues that would incur costs. The city would be putting itself between the
renter and the landlord. There is nothing the city could provide that state law
does not already address. This would increase the liability of the city and
increase the possibilities for litigation. From his brief review there would
have to be approximately one inspection for every working day. Also the city
could not turn a profit on these fees. This would create an extensive auditing
process and makes the city more vulnerable. Additionally the city should want to
be on the trailing end of this type of ordinance because at the front end you
have to be willing to litigate. Right now there are few problems and little need
to litigate. If properties are not up to code then they should be vigorously
pursued using the current laws. He asked the Commission take a look at the
necessity because the increase in risk, liability, financial and staffing issues
are a great concern. He has talked to colleagues who have these ordinances and
some of them have nightmare stories and spend a lot of time in federal court. He
virtually guaranteed litigation if privately owned properties are not separated
from business owned. He would like to see the city spend the money on issues
that are more pertinent. There are definite costs and potential liabilities and
he hopes the Commission does not recommend this ordinance without considering
all of those issues.
Morelli
stated there is a difference between places that keep up their property and
single-family homes that are rented. How should the city deal with properties
that are slowly falling down because of a lack of care? Lee stated that is
difficult to answer because there is no clear line between good landscaping and
bad. Standards could be created that state it would be the property owner’s
responsibility to maintain the landscaping and they could offset the cost with
an increase in rent. For issues such as people who do not paint for ten years it
is more difficult because there is a balance between being derelict property and
one that meets the standards.
Morelli
asked how one would know if a property habitable without going inside. He gave
two examples. Lee stated those types of situations should be reported to the
building department and they could be ticketed. Morelli asked if a home was
inspected and afterwards something happened would the city be liable. Lee stated
it could be an extremely expensive litigation. If there was a violation the
ticket needs to be specific so the court could request an inspection. If a code
can not be sited then it gets ugly. Some people have different standards than
others.
Morelli
stated he does not want to see tenants afraid to complain. Right now they do not
know who to complain to and what their rights are. Lee agreed those are problems
but may be the city should start small. Starting general inspections creates a
big opening.
Culbertson
asked what state law covers. Lee answered state law covers everything except the
inspection. Culbertson asked if the city could do something to increase
awareness to the rights of renters. Lee noted that landlord could put the same
kind of pressure on inspectors that they could put on renters to keep them from
complaining. The communication needs to begin with the renters, if that does not
work then start with a small ordinance.
Morelli
stated he understands the city not wanting to be first in line but he asked Mr.
Lee about the statement on page two of his letter about the damage by a tenant
to the property. Lee answered the landlord could sue for damages. Morelli asked
what if the damage was not really the tenants faulty. Lee replied that is why we
have courts.
Tartaglia
stated the reality is the landlord is at a disadvantage because the renter could
leave and if they did not have insurance then the landlord is stuck. Lee stated
the city does not want to get in the middle of that.
Morelli
asked for clarification on item #4 on page three. Lee stated if someone alleges
they were injured because the city did not identify the risk the employee, as an
agent of the city, could be sued.
Morelli
asked if the landlord could enter buildings without permission and if that was
standard. The audience answered yes.
Lance
Oberg, 2365 Lerwick Lane, Milford, MI
Oberg
stated he had to enter a building because of a claim that a pit bull was living
on the property. The renters refused to allow him entry. The police could not
help and by the time they were evicted the house was destroyed and cost a
tremendous amount to repair.
Lee
noted that is exactly the kind of situation where the City should not be caught
in the middle.
Morelli
asked if it would be possible to separate complexes from single homes. Lee
answered yes, and it would be very simple to create ordinances to address the
issues. The problem would be home owners versus renters because if you inspect
one residential property you should inspect the other. There would have to be
clear distinctions. If the concern is habitable homes then how do you
distinguish home-owner occupied? Morelli asked what does one put in place to
stop landlords that do not maintain the house. Lee stated he is sympathetic to
the desire and importance in doing something but, especially in a democracy, we
have to set the standard up front. It is not his place to suggest what the laws
of the city should be; it is his job to enforce them. He would appreciate, so
would the city administrators, to keep things as narrow as possible.
Lewandowski
stated the problem with the ordinance is it would put the responsibility on the
building department and they do not do enough as it is. He would like to see the
building department enforce the ordinances that currently exist before creating
more.
Lee
stated he could enforce something says “peeling paint is not allowed” but
could not enforce “depilated property”. Cunningham asked if this is an issue
of needing to revise the maintenance standards. Lee stated they should be
specific standards. Tartaglia noted that legally the means exist. Lee stated
once the building department writes a ticket, they have fifteen days to contest
it in court. If it is not corrected the courts could be used to compel the owner
to comply. Lewandowski stated the city should not spend so much time on one
landlord that other problems are neglected. Lee agreed and that was why he
needed to know what needs to be resolved.
Tartaglia
asked at what point imminent domain would come into play. Lee stated no one
wants that. He explained the process. He is not a fan of it unless the city
needs to build a hospital or a road and even then other ways should be fully
explored. Tartaglia asked at what point state law would supersede and ordinance
like this. Lee stated since all power for a city comes from the state, the state
takes over when the city exceeds the state standard. He suggested the city deal
with the problems where there is clear power.
Lanam
asked why a homeowner with a broken window is given notice to fix it and they do
not nothing happens but when their grass is too long the city mows it and
charges them for it. Lee stated with grass there is a specific scientific reason
for long grass affecting the health and wellness of a community. People have to
make objections and point things out.
Oberg
stated, for the record, that he opposes this ordinance and handed out a written
statement. He also noted that on the whole renters have a lot more smarts then
the Commission eluded. Morelli stated one bad apple could ruin it for everyone
but asked how to fix the one. The Commission is not interested in punishing good
landlords and good renters. Oberg noted everyone had the same concerns about the
maintenance and upkeep of buildings.
Mike
Schrem, Green Oak Township, MI
Mr.
Schrem stated he owns a few properties. He recommends that the ordinance be
abandoned. He stays visible with his tenants and the city has been helpful. He
is interested in keeping his property value up but does not think this ordinance
is needed. Morelli asked where he would go if it were one house and the landlord
was not visible. Schrem stated he would go to Mr. Veltri. He thinks the city has
to give some leeway to upkeep standards because one man’s trash is another
man’s treasure. One person is the exception to the rule. Morelli agreed but
stated it still should be addressed.
Bradley
suggested the Commission take Mr. Lee’s advice and narrow the scope.
Glen
Kivell, 235 West Lake, South Lyon, MI
Council
member Kivell stated he had a conversation with Mr. Veltri regarding a rental
property and the snow removal on the sidewalk. It is not a high priority item
but it is a nuisance. If you have a bad house and you have less than fantastic
renters you start to accept those lower standards. He understands not painting
with a broad brush but it can not be a matter of selective enforcement. The city
should identify problems and address them with specific actions.
Lee
stated if there is a problem with a neighbor and they own it, you go and talk
directly to them. If they rent you don’t. We do have access to look up
property owners. We may want to work on informing people.
Cunningham
stated she has the sense they would like to abandon the ordinance as written and
address the problem of enforcement. Morelli stated he is not ready to abandon
it. Cunningham noted the concern is mainly with the exterior of homes and the
ordinance addresses the interior. Is that the concern for the Commission?
Morelli stated he is concerned with safety for the tenant. Cunningham replied
that is covered by state law. Morelli stated that is reactive not proactive. The
other part is to maintain property values. Cunningham stated people were not
going to ask to visit the inside of a neighbor’s home before buying it. They
could consider revising other ordinances, conduct public education sessions
through the website, newsletter, and on cable access, as early as tomorrow for
some things. Cunningham asked if she should bring the property maintenance
standards to the next meeting. Morelli commented he was not familiar with them.
Lee stated that would be a good place to start.
Cunningham
asked everyone to make lists as they reviewed the standards on things they would
to see changed or have questions on. Lanam
asked if the city could inspect based on complaints only and not as part of a
schedule. Lee replied no, the city would have to show cause for a subpoena and
they are extremely difficult to get. Cunningham asked what the Commission wanted
to do with the ordinance. Morelli replied he would like to leave it for now and
start with the property maintenance and public education.
There
was no new business.
Staff
Reports
Morelli
announced he put his name in for City Council. Cunningham stated the South Lyon
Auto Wash submitted a site plan but it needs additional work. The schools will
be back the second meeting in March.
Motion
by Culbertson supported by Bradley
To
adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
_____________________
_
____________________ _______
Ron
Morelli, Chairperson
Jennifer Knapp, Recording Secretary
________________________
Steve
Mosier, Secretary