In other areas of the zoning regulations I read, "Other special uses may be approved in only those zoning districts where they are designated as special uses under the zoning district regulations." (Section 10.2) (pages 67-68)

I've yet to read anywhere in the zoning regulations where a ski hill, or a ski resort, is listed specifically under a "special use".
At the same time, I don't find it listed anywhere under "permitted use".
But maybe the first paragraph above answers a question I had earlier--is a ski hill a special use or a permitted use--in that the first paragraph above suggests a ski hill is not a special use, that it is a permitted use, and that a ski resort is not a special use, since it is not listed specifically as such anywhere that I've seen, and so a ski resort must be a permitted use...
But where?
In what zoning classification is a ski hill or a ski resort a permitted use, then?

P.S. Moderator? See any ranting today?

Paul: Are you saying that the State Appellate Court has already rejected the County Prosecutor's appeal on Judge Hood's ruling with respect to her request for an injunction on stopping work at Mt. Bohemia or are you referring to some other appeal?
Walt: Thanks for your clarification on special uses. It makes me wonder why Black Bear just didn't ask for a special use approval within CD-EP for the cabins(hunting lodge special use) and for the ski-lift(transporation facility special use). A ski-hill with cabins, something which would complement the Keweenaw Mountain Lodge, I find appealing. A ski-hill rezoned to RS opens the door to constructing all kinds of commercial facilities up there.
Alicia: Thank you for your work on the Schoolcraft
Cemetery. As I think I once told you, my GG Grandfather is buried there(though his headstone was stolen some time ago). Thank as well to the Cornish Society and other volunteers.
Susie: If Black Bear is fishing for votes in Ahmeek it shouldn't be surprising. As I understand it, by far the greatest percentage of Keweenaw County voters live in Allouez township.

Finally, I'd like to second Sandy's complaint on the recent DMG editorial. Not only is there at least 1 blatant inaccuracy contained in it("handful(?) of cabins"), it takes an unfair shot at the ZBA chairman(Jim Heikkila)who is only trying to do his job which is to serve as best he can the people of Keweenaw County(not Black Bear). There will be many people justly displeased with the author of that editorial. I too believe that the electorate would be better served if CD-EP was more clearly defined before November 7th, but not if it's at the expense of something more important. Did it ever occur to the DMG that maybe some of the elected officals in Keweenaw County simply don't like the way that Black Bear operates? There are more than just legal technicalities at issue here.

Hi Jim Pearce, Thanks for the offer to help out in restoring our local cemeteries.So many people have stopped by the Schoolcraft when i have been recording there.Looking for a burial list in search of their ancestors.I have tried to get the National Park interested in it but have had no reply from the National Headquarters.Perhaps cemeteries are out of their jurisdiction.If you want to get a scope of how big the cemetery is ,you can take a bush road in the back and walk around the parameter of it up to the Northern side.You then can understand the huge task of cleaning it out!So many of our cemeteries are in sad shape.I see that someone has actually painted over some markers in Eagle River...that is one of the worst things that you can do.It accelerates the deteriation of the stone!Plain old water is the best way to clean them.There are sites on the internet for restoring stones that are helpful.Check out the "saving graves" sites.I look forward to seeing how many folks that we can get out there next spring!! Lets UNITE the community instead of dividing it.
Alicia

Susie, Susie, Susie, Where have you been? The people who first mentioned lawsuit were the county OFFICALS(OFFICAL). It was our conflict of interest atty. She is up to her hairline in a tub of hot water. The state board of appeals did not reject her appeal for nothing! The appeal had no ISSUES! Just like the referandem. The board made it clear to her they wanted the vote on the zoning. She said no way once again. I think the state BAR will remove her for all of us. She is running around like the chicken. Both sides need this ballot spelled out right. The way it is now its like if a no vote wins the issue is still up in the air. If the YES vote wins it still up in the air as to what happens. I have never been so misguided by a county official as I feel I am now. The conflict of interest by her is overwelming. I feel that this alone will put her in her place before all this is swept under the rug. (I hope so).

Now that the ISSUES surrounding the hill are being talked about, the board is in limbo,the county atty. is POWER TRIPPING, and the people are confused what about the welfare of our kids? Bleak is the word that comes to mind. I am in wonder how the main issue of our kids future is side stepped! The future is our youth! Skiing is a youth related function. The whole jist is to give our youth more to do here in my county. Not Houghton county or Baraga county but in KEWEENAW COUNTY!!!!!!!! VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe pending litigation was on the table--how many times did Crosswinds threaten law-suits, as proved by what they are doing, per the "Whinin' Gazette". Threats and deception and distortions!! Are you believing "Better Economy" one Economy takes from another, such as Logging, Fishing, Hunting, etc. $60 Million into Keweenaw Economy (where is the Keweenaw Boundary--we've been taken over by special interests and greed). $300,000 in local taxes and Crosswinds leases the land, does that tell you something? They ask the Taxpayer to build the septic system, are you assured yet? They create Black Bear to bear the brunt of bankruptcy and liability--are you confident, yet? And, Michigan Tech should keep its distance from these questionable "Good=time Rock & Rollers", it is a state institution, funded by taxpayers. Probably the only $'s that has come from Crosswinds into the County is what they had to pay. Do we get straight answers? No. I also heard Crosswinds contacted Ahmeek Village to see if they could be of any assistance in helping them vote on this issue. Is this a fact? Also the Board should be commended for signing up 40 students at the Keweenaw Academy to vote in November. What a great effort!! It sure is keeping in line with their other responsible actions. Hmmm!

What is needed, here, is a defined Zoning, now what is wrong with that? Bigger development means big business: and, a missed opportunity to save Keweenaw County from outside interests that don't give a hoot. We are doing it for all of you, this is your backyard too, America. Vote NO in November.

I have read the some believe RS zoning allows too much, that it
Gives a developer free rein to do what they want. There are other
Types of zoning classifications, but I refer to RS and CD-EP in this
Post.
As I read the pages pertaining to RS and CD-EP, I find that a
special use under RS is a golf course. Note that it is a special use,
not a permitted use, of which there are 11 items listed. A ski resort
would be item #12? But a golf course is a special use under RS, and
if the hand-written notation next to the special use category is
correct, the special uses under RS, "requires public hearing".

So…a golf course is a special use under RS and requires a public hearing

Turning my attention to CD-EP, I read that "golf courses" are a
Permitted use, not a special use, of which there are two listed,
Hunting lodges and sanitary landfills.

So…a golf course is a special use under RS and requires a public
Hearing. A golf course is a permitted use under CD-EP and we
Can assume that it does not require a public hearing.

Is anyone else wondering who wrote the zoning ordinances?

And finally…where is a ski hill permitted? Or if that question is
One that won't be answered for ten years or more, where is a ski hill a special use?


Jeff, on Sunday, 1.39 pm, you wrote:
"If CD-EP allows hunting lodges, why couldn't it allow cabins?"
Jeff, as I read it, hunting lodges are a "special use" in CD-EP, and as such,
Are subject to individual review. Hunting lodges are subject to special
Use procedures.

Curiously, in Section 10, under "Special Uses in All Districts"
"transportation facilities, and similar uses" ….."are designated as special
uses which may be approved in all zoning districts."

Alicia, I for one along with my chainsaw would be more than happy to volunteer a weekend or two to this great cause.
Keep in touch through this sight. Hopefully Charlie and Pasty Central will keep it going after the Mt. Bohemia debate is over, so people can communicate ideas on such important issues.
Many people don't realise the amount of people who visit the area for our historical significance. It needs to be preserved. The National Park Service could be approched to help in this matter.
You may want to speak to grandma at the keweenaw issues chat room, she is usually there around 7:00 P.M. She is into geneology, and is working on a family tree. I ahd a very interesting conversation with her about it one night. Thanks Again.

Sandy and Arlene,
Please see "ravings" for the tree vs lift issue.

O.K.
I lied!
I'm still down here, and am gettin in one last post before I leave.
Ltorkelson,Hope they hang on!
Susie,
AGAIN,the reason for a closed session meeting is allowed IF PENDING LITIGATION is going on, NONE WAS! Get over it they did something wrong everyone knows that.
Ms. Sandy,
You seem a little to willing to let all this rest until after the county atty has her appeal.
I don't think it should. The sooner the zoning is defined clearly that is the better off everyone will be, and it needs to be done before the referendum.
Ted,
As always, YOU GOT IT!
Could you all please go back and read his post.
Thank you Paul, I know I am.
hehehehe, See you at the shop.
Off to sleep for a while to dream of funny colored ski lifts, county attys doing funny dances in pants(Good God Stop the Maddness),and all the funny little stuff I'm sure will be on my mind.
The one thing that I will not find funny though is if the community is made to pay for the neglect and all the other shifty tactics that have been goin on up there, I don't think anyone will be laughing then.
OH YEAH!
I am also in agreement with whoever wrote about Ms. Pelto taking the brunt of Mr. Kohs actions, or his pointing out that as the admin she gets to do all the dirty work, seems another case where someone is not willing to DIRECTLY get their own hands dirty. You know who you are!
See you soon kiddies,
Lisa

Arlene - We were talking about the trees up high all being shaped by the north wind while on the parking lot. When we were down by the yurt bases later is when someone popped off about those funny shaped bright green trees, with my response, again, in jest. Certainly no offence was intended and I surely hope none taken. If you feel an apology is due, please consider it offered.

At this moment I'm still in LacLaBelle, but what I moved here for won't be here long, so my regret in leaving is tempered. Local resident reaction to that color is universal, and I sure can't see how it enhances the wilderness experience. And truly, you're right, that is neither here nor there.

I have a great deal of respect for everyone on the committee, because they are willing to take the time and effort to try to minimize impacts, etc. but I certainly don't have to agree with everyone. Lively exchange of opinion is not a bad thing, and is how consensus can be reached.

As to our local officials, as I said before, none of us are lawyers or legal specialists. Let's wait and see what the courts have to say before we point fingers and cut down people doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances.

As some of you may remember, i have been doing an "informal" recording of the old Schoolcraft Cemetery on U.S.41 on Calumets Northern border.
Kathy Atwood volunteered to help me out yesterday and knows her "stuff" much better than me.We did the Northern facing part of the cemetery as best we could.I realize now that this cemetery was HUGE.It needs a massive clean-up effort.Of course, it is too late in the year to begin this but i would like some people to organize a very large group to do "grunt" work,hundreds of trees need to be cut down and hauled out..stumps dug out and brush removed.The stones that are missing are most likely sunk into the soil,you need to probe about 6 inches into it to recover them.The Cornish Society has started the clean up but if this cemetery is to be preserved ,it must be a community effort.So many of our cemeteries are left to mother nature to take over and not maintained.We should be ashamed that we have forgotten our ancestors and the purpose why they came here in the first place!My great grandfather is buried there, he lived in Keweenaw first so alot of you who think that all your "rellies" are buried in Keweenaw,may be mistaken.I have a large data base of names and dates that i am working on.
I have it partially done and the complete list will be posted on the Houghton County genweb site.
As a sampling here are some surnames i have recorded: Vivian, Haun, Korpela, Tonkin, Cocking, Shwykert, Messner, Martin, Sauer, Effinger, Larson, Tiberg, Keast, Foreman, Svenson, Nilsson, Robert, Kinsman, Tario, Seppola, Erickson, Halonen, Trezona, Rader, Kataja, Engstrom, Nankervis, Gray, Hodge-Vivian, Rowling, Harris, Wilcox, Dahl, Tunander, Shears, McLean, Pope, Pascoe. Some surnames are very prevalent,such as the Vivian-Hodge, and Messner surname.If anyone has a question on my list,please e-mail me and i can check on the names and dates.Some markers are broken , with out a name or just a date,which we recorded anyway.I have hundreds in names in my database.
Alicia

I find it somewhat irrelevant, at this point, when CD-EP, RS is defined. What's on the table is our Referendum to be voted on in November. That referendum should have stopped all construction on the ski-hill and area until the zoning was properly defined. I find it pretty risky that Crosswinds went ahead with construction with the possibility that they could not build their big development (remember it's not just a "ski-hill") Judge Hood muddied the water by getting off the subject. Why tell us so rightously that the Board does something questionable when it goes into "closed door sessions" There was the possibility of litigation. We asked him to uphold the referendum--"closed door session" was not on the table. I would think Crosswinds would have had to file that suit.

Come on folks, we citizens worked hard for a legal Referendum, we have it on the ballot, now just vote NO, and give pause for some definitions of Zoning. It's for everyone's good. Then we can forge ahead with Land Use and what's good for Keweenaw County. Is that unreasonable?

P.S. After you get your free skies, snowboards and headgear what price is the ticket? I wonder if all the free stuff "ups" the price of the day fun for all you "good-time rock & rollers"?

Ted, I may be wrong, and am searching for a copy of the letter that went out at the time of filing, but I believe it clearly stated that ANY work done until after the referendum was at their own risk. Will post the exact wording as soon as I locate it.

After reading last night's editorial in the DMG I find it both amusing and sad that the editor speaks with such authority on legal matters. It is sad because he is so obviously trying to confuse voters. I also find his attacks on Jim Heikkila and Donna Jaaskelainen disgusting. They have sought and received legal counsel and are, I believe, doing their duty. Perhaps it would be prudent for all of us to wait for the Appelate Court's decision before we expose our ignorance on the matters at hand.

The advisory board went on the mountain with xw's last night. The work completed to date is well done, a tribute to the skill of our local heavy-equipment operators. Someone asked what kind of 'trees' those weird green things were (The lift towers), someone said 'white pines' and someone else said 'flatlander pines'. Asked about plans for section 31 west of LacLaBelle, answer was no plans yet. However, new logging roads pushed in very closely mirror development plan layouts in the 1989 proposal.

We plan to ask more hard questions at the Advisory Board meeting, which has been changed to Tuesday, Oct. 17 at 7:00 because of conflicts with another meeting. The public is welcome to attend. See everyone there!

Sandy,

Once again you are incorrect. When the referendum was filed a notice went to Black Bear stating that anything they construct in the CD-EP zone would be at their own financial risk IF (and only if) the referendum passes.

It stated NOTHING about construction that that would be legal in a CD-EP zone anyway. This is the key piece that MUST be clarified and the issue that Donna has been stalling.

Why?

None of the construction that Black Bear has done so far has been ILLEGAL.

Ted

Earlier in the year when the debate on the ski hill began on the Mendota website, there was a marinade of posts that told of other ski hills, how they had floundered, how they had hired Jamaicans, how high their hills are.
Has anyone looked at those ski hills and how the land they are on is zoned?

Jeff,
No, I wasn't suggesting a CLUP be made retroactive.
I am suggesting that I find it curious that some who want a CLUP are not arguing loudly for CD-EP and RS to be defined clearly--before the vote.
Just as I found it curious that many who have called our elected representative's behavior into question in the past were silent when the closed session meeting took place, who even defended this closed session, even when the minutes of the closed session were made known.
So how long will a CLUP take when we have a consensus like that?

Lynn: Points well taken.
Sandy: You've worn me down. I look forward to you(or Michele) asking some of these questions we've raised today at Eagle Lodge on October 19th and then reading your account of it in Keweenaw Today. Having just read the DMG editorial on this matter, it seems their assumption is that even if the State Appellate court rules in the County Prosecutor's favor, it will still just mean that the ZBA must define CD-EP more clearly.
Good night and pleasant dreams...

Lisa,

We took a drive on the covered road and on up to Freda today, and we saw lots of color. The leaves are not quite so brilliant as they were last weekend, but they're still very beautiful in many places. All we need is a couple more days without much wind, and they'll still be waiting here for you! Enjoy!

Jeff,

I'm not accusing the Keweenaw County officials of any dark conspiracy in delaying their decision on whether a ski hill fits under CD-EP or not. It's just that usually I can speculate fairly accurately about what people hope to accomplish by taking an unexpected course of action, and in this case I'm at a total loss. (Probably old age creeping up on me in yet another way.)

On the mess of the alleged zoning violations (Thanks, Mr. Buck!), it seems to me that the real zinger is that the laws appear to require the removal of all existing structures before they can get the permits required to put them back in. I'm sure this will be straightened out some way, but this situation is another one that puzzles me. (Yep, more white hairs up there than I realized.) Why didn't they just get the permits? When they started work without them, why didn't someone from the county--or even a local citizen--point out that they needed to get those permits right away?

I strongly support going ahead full steam with the CLUP and getting the zoning completely in order. For one thing, it's just not fair to potential developers to force them to operate with unclear rules and murky legalities.

On the issue of intimidation, I do have a somewhat darker view of the Elias-Elias letter to Mr. Kohs. Yes, it was directed at him personally, but the reason was that Mr. Kohs has been very outspoken and active in putting forward his views as a private citizen. Everyone is on notice that unpleasant consequences might follow from becoming equally active.

I strongly believe that local governments working hand in hand with very active, concerned citizens can make a great and positive impact on their communities. I'd like to see those who oppose Mr. Kohs' ideas be outspoken and active also. But I simply detest all attempts to intimidate the folks who take their citizenship seriously.

When the Notice of Intent to File Petition for Referendum was filed, registered letters were sent to Black Bear, Crosswinds and LSLC that any further work done on the hill was at their own financial risk. The zoning ordinance changes they requested are challenged by the referendum, correctly and legally according to the laws for counties with county-wide zoning. That effectively stopped any legal work under the new zoning changes until after the referendum, a fact Black Bear has chosen to ignore. It is a sad commentary that nobody here had the expertise to realize that our zoning was as strong as it was until two weeks ago.

I believe, but am not savvy-enough legally to know, that the appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals in Lansing. Please, somebody clear this up if not correct.

Sandy: If any official or county citizen feels they have been "intimidated" by representatives of Black Bear in this matter then I agree with you, they should let it be known. Unfortunately if this evidence is only anecdotal, and not in writing or on a recorded phone call, it would be difficult to prove. Anyone with an axe to grind could make such a complaint public.
What troubles me about this whole affair is the situation I feel the zoning administrator has been put in. Mr. Koh's "zoning analysis" is essentially a request by him to have Ms. Pelto enforce the zoning ordinance and shut down construction. It is based on his belief that filing the referendum should have stopped all work. This after Black Bear applied(and then had adopted) an amendment to the Mt. Bohemia zoning: an application that was first processed by the zoning adminstrator and finally OKed by the County Board of Commissioners. They must feel a sense of frustration, at the very least, from what has proceeded after that amendment was adopted.
On the other hand, based on Mr. Koh's article and a quick read of the zoning ordinance that Charles Buck posted in his library, it is evident that Black Bear has broken the zoning ordinance law by proceeding with construction before having their zoning permit OKed by the zoning administrator. The only reason I can figure why they have willfully broken this zoning law is, all things considered, that either they feel the zoning ordinance itself is legally problematic or that the fine for this particular violation is $100.00(or up to 90 days in jail). A small price to pay considering how much money they would lose if they didn't have some kind of facility ready for this winter as they have promised potential customers.
I'd still like to know to whom the County Prosecutor is addressing her appeal on Judge Hood's ruling.

The intimidation factor I'm speaking of has nothing to do with the letters to Gary, but to conversations held with Twp. and County officials, as well as private citizens. I'd like to encourage those with first-hand experience on this topic to speak up.

Sandy, I never heard that Crosswinds mentioned lawsuit? I tll you what though, if it was me that was taking the flack that they are I would be thinking of it.
Lisa, your right
Gary, wheres my new computer?

Hey everyone,

Just a couple thoughts before I'm actually up there.
First, Jeff, as much as I admire your insight into the liability issues coming from the link that I supplied, I must correct you on one thing.
The closed session meeting should only have been held if there IS PENDING litigation. Which there wasn't. So in my opinion this violates the OMA.
In that meeting I believe(I haven't read the minutes)there was no talk of pending litigation mentioned.
Now, before, I repeat, before, the referendum was even brought forth, the classification and language, of the CD-EP and or RS zoning should have been CLEARLY defined. This would have saved alot of headaches, heartaches, not to mention the rift that this issue is causing in the community.
I will tell you that you all better wake up and pretty bloody quick my friends, there are obvious personal agendas, conflicts of interest, and not to mention down right underhandedness being conducted everyday, in everyway up there.
You need to look out for the community you live in because I do hate to say, it seems alot of the people involved are definetly NOT!
So recognize this fact and act now. Find out your rights, in regards of the ZBA, the county atty, and if their actions(or lack of action)is going to be detrimental to your way of life.
O.K. I'm off my soap box, and if this needs to be moved to the other site so be it.
I will hope to see some of you at the open house that Crosswinds is having on Sunday.
See you soon
Be smart.
Lisa

"Without a Future Land Use Plan to provide the basis for zoning, the legality of the existing zoning ordinance is questionable" (italics mine).
From the Keweenaw County Land Use Map(created in 1987 and adopted in 1994)

Sandy: If there is any mud in the water, I believe this is the source of it. This, in addition to the MTA constitutional liability clause I posted earlier, is what would give Black Bear grounds for a lawsuit(if necessary). The "intimidation" factor, at least from what I've read in the Elias-Elias letters to Mr. Koh's, is minimal and directed at him. This is legal rhetoric, not a Russian Mafia death threat. As unprofessional as I think their letters to Mr. Koh's were, the larger voting populace is unlikely to buy your "intimidation" angle on this.
The zoning language for RS and CD-EP before the amendment is vague enough, in my opinion, to allow for the building of a ski-hill. In fact, the ski-hill is a present day reality and I can't imagine that, after the public remarks with respect to the zoning language of CD-EP he made at the injunction request, that Judge Hood would rule that Black Bear disassemble everything they have already constructed. Who is the County Prosecutor appealing Judge Hood's ruling to? An Appeals Court?
If you think that voting NO on Proposal B means no ski hill at all, I think you are mistaken(at least in the long run), because the zoning language is already "muddy water". Not clearly defining CD-EP before the vote will only make things worse. If CD-EP allows "hunting lodges", why wouldn't it allow cabins? If RS allows "recreational establishments of a commercial nature", why wouldn't it allow ski resort facilities?
If people believe a NO vote on Proposal B will mean NO SKI HILL, it could tip a lot of moderate voters who like the idea of a ski hill and for whom this is not a life or death issue into voting YES, thus rezoning Mt. Bohemia to RS and allowing for all sorts of commercial development on the hill other than just cabins. For those who are adamantly anti-ski hill, I would think you'd find that to be the worst possible outcome.
I believe a NO vote is the wisest choice because it can be the beginning of a healthy compromise on development in Lac La Belle, but only if CD-EP and RS is clearly defined before the election. If it isn't, then all bets are off and the vote itself probably won't mean enough to merit anything conclusive(except for which lawyers win how much $).
A ps to Walt. As you know, I'm pro-CLUP. I don't however believe it would be fair(and probably legally indefensible) to try and make it retro-active with respect to the Mt. Bohemia Ski-Hill if that's what you're suggesting. That's why I support clearly defining the zoning language on this particular issue before the vote on November 7th.

Does anyeone else find it ironic that many who are raising their voices for a CLUP are also hoping CD-EP is not defined before the election?

Sandy,

If that is the case then the November 7th vote should also be suspended.

There NEEDS to be clarification on exactly what the voters are voting for in Nov.

If this is not clear then the vote may as well be tallied on a roll of Charmin. Also by having a vague vote, the county opens itself to liability.

Ted

I may be wrong, but I believe the appeal filed last week by the Cty. Atty. puts any meetings, hearings or decisions on hold. Please remember in all this discussion, the referendum wording contains two parts, one CD-EP/RS and the other whether a ski-hill will be a permitted use at all. A wondrous effort has been, and is being, made to muddy the water. The simple fact is a NO vote says there will BE NO SKI-HILL permitted. Period.

I believe also CROSSWINDS' BLATANT ATTEMPS TO SCARE RESIDENTS INTO VOTING YES BY THREATENING A LAWSUIT should be recognized as exactly that, and proper contempt dumped on their heads. Crosswinds has NO grounds to sue Keweenaw County, and our Cty. Atty. has done, and is doing, an excellent job. I believe Mr. Elias and Co. have severely underrated Keweenaw County residents by thinking we can be intimidated. In reality, most of us react to that type of behavior with anger.

Jeff,

You quoted: "Finally, if a township board or commission is unsure of a proposed position on a planning or zoning question, adjourn or table the issue until the necessary formal opinions and information from the township lawyer, engineer or consultant are obtained."

I can understand tabling the decision for a month to get the proper input form "legal", "zoning", etc. experts to make the decision. This appears more to be a stall to have the referendum decide a zoning issue(cd-ep clarification).

Something is just not right with this situation.

Ted

Lynn and Ted: I think we should give the County Prosecutor and the ZBA the benefit of the doubt as to why the CD-EP decision was originally tabled in July. There were no conspiratorial motives. The stated concern was possible litigation against the County. The cause of this concern is the vagueness of the CD-EP zoning language. I re-post here my earlier reference to constitutional liability issues that are discussed at the Michigan Township Association site.
"Finally, if a township board or commission is unsure of a proposed position on a planning or zoning question, adjourn or table the issue until the necessary formal opinions and information from the township lawyer, engineer or consultant are obtained."(italics mine)
Having said this, I remain convinced that clearly defining both the permissive and prohibitive uses of CD-EP on Mt. Bohemia should be done before November 7th.

Lynn,

I don't think they did know. I think they thought they were stopping the ski hill by filing the referendum, and when they realized that wasn't the case they panicked. They tried to stop construction first by not defining CD-EP and then by trying to issue an injunction.

All this to me appears to be Donna (with advice from Gary, Gordon, Martha?) deliberately trying to sidetrack the developer, very similar to the Novi case that was brought up a month ago.

I have been saying all along (since the Medota site) this will end up in court no matter how the vote goes and no matter what the residents of Keweenaw want or say. Unfortunately the people that will prosper the most form this are the lawyers and not the taxpayers of Keweenaw County.

Ted

Ted,

I don't see why any group would have gone through the work and expense of getting the referendum on the ballot if they knew in advance that it would only have the effect of moving buildings from the mountain to the roadside. I realize that there must be some reason for delaying the decision on CD-EP zoning, but for the life of me I can't see what it would be.

Paul,

I have a theory on why Donna is trying to postpone the ZBA meeting:

I think that when the Zoning Board approved the zoning change to Mt. Bohemia that a lot of residents were caught off guard.

Someone, maybe Gary, maybe Gordon, got the idea that if this is presented to the residents in such a way that they think that they are voting on a ski hill and not on a zoning change, there would be less of a chance that it would pass. I think that Donna is under pressure to keep the CD-EP clarification postponed so that it appears that the vote will decide the hill.

The voters NEED to know what they are voting on. A big part of that is the clarification of CD-EP. I think the vote outcome would be very different if the residents knew ahead of time that the ski hill is allowed under CD-EP, and this is what scares Donna's "advisors".

I also think that stalling the CD-EP decision will taint the vote and give yet another piece of ammunition to Mr. Elias if he ever needs to take this to court.

People, know what you are voting on, not a ski hill but a zoning change.

Ted

Hi Charlie,

Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to move irresponsible and anonymous comments. It surely does improve the signal-to-noise ratio in this section!

Best regards,

Constance Petersen

The credit (or blame) for 'downgrading' any posting in Keweenaw Issues goes to the editorial committee. Certain comments were moved to the RANTING section in deference to those who felt some remarks were a personal and inflamatory attack.
ch

Unfortunately the on-line DMG prints only parts of articles. That meeting has now been cancelled. Brian Henderson was from here, lived in Idaho, I believe, and has been trying to find work here so he could come home. His wife recently was hired at MTU.

Once again the DMG comes thru with half the story. In yesterday's article they freely quoted Mr. Elias' letter, but no mention was made of the one posted on KT in answer from Ms. Black. It seems to me a balanced article should have both.

I'm going to nit-pick for a second, but whoever picked that color green for the lift towers either had a compelling reason or was color blind. It isn't a 'loud' green, it is more a 'neon' green, and sticks out like a sore thumb!

I just read at the on-line DMG site that the Zoning Administrator(Jane Pelto) has tentatively set an October 16 reconvening of the ZBA to resolve this issue unless she is overruled by the County Prosecutor(who is appealing Judge Hood's ruling on the injunction she earlier requested).

Yes, it seems to me too that the CD-EP zoning rules should be spelled out in advance of the vote. In fact, I've never been able to figure out what point there is to delaying this decision. Why, exactly, shouldn't both the voters and the developers know precisely what the current rules really are? Perhaps some arcane legal strategy is behind this, but I sure can't see any sense in it.

Ted:
I'm in complete agreement with you. The permissive and prohibitive uses for the CD-EP zone on Mt. Bohemia should be specifically defined and resolved before the election so the voters know exactly what it is they are voting for or against on November 7th.

After Janet Avery's excellent presentation on Land-Use Planning = Zoning from the l970's to present which equalled to nothing but pitching the ball back and forth and losing it, our Keweenaw Board still would not set a date for the Board, Community, Land Company, DNR, DEQ, Pro's, Anyone interested to seriously discuss responsible development and maintaining adequate recreational, natural-resource use. The Board, after prodding, say "no money", "no time" and "it's late, we gotta go home....What progressive thinkers. We did hear them a little better with the new P.A. System.

Thanks to Trout Unlimited for their presentation on fish stocking in the Keweenaw to maintain good fishing for those who still like the out-of-doors. They also were concerned on keeping fishing in the Keweenaw and are working with the DNR.

You cannot replace cranberry bogs, berry patches, developed hunting lands, fishing streams, etc. Good News,,you can bring back a mountain (50 to l00 yrs.) maybe. So let's stop irresponsible development, create a Land-Use Plan and save the Keweenaw. We have a "Window of Opportunity", and it is NOW!!! Vote NO in November..

Ted,

Thanks.

Is that Arne's son?

Jon,

I heard he is currently living in Hancock. I havn't spoken to him in a few years, but I hope to see him at the Oct. 15th open house.

Ted

Ted,

Where does the manager of the hill currently live?

You said a Hancock native. Does he still live there? If that is the same Brian Henderson I think it is, I thought he moved out of the area years ago. True he may have moved back to the area, but I am not sure.

Jeff,

The only problem I see with your reasoning is:

CD-EP would have to be defined BEFORE the election.

Given the current circumstances I doubt that will happen.

On a brighter side, Black Bear announced today that they have hired a Ski Hill Manager, Brian Henderson, A Hancock native.

Looks like Black Bear is keeping with the "Local" hiring policy that they boasted.

Ted

Upon Ken Pierson's reminder I returned to George Hite's website to re-read his March letters to the County Commissioners. It seems that Mr. Hite has been on top of this whole zoning controversy right from the start. His newly published opinion that a NO vote on Proposal B is the wiser of two choices only strengthens my mutual conviction that this is indeed true.
I don't currently believe a NO vote will stop the ski-hill's eventual completion(even if Mr. Koh's current article now up at Keweenaw Today on zoning violations by Black Bear has firm legal foundation--ie fines will be paid, if necessary, and construction will continue), but I do believe that a NO vote will give more local control as to what kind of development(and how much development)will accompany this project.
That, to me, as a skiing fan of the landscaping already done, would be the best of all possible worlds.

For some interesting information on the whole zoning issue, and some enlightening moves by Black Bear, please go to Keweenaw Today for Gary Koh's article and attendant documents. It makes interesting reading!

Don't forget the Keweenaw County Board of Commissioners meeting this evening at 7:00 PM at the Courthouse in Eagle River. Proposed sale of KC land by IP will be discussed. It should be of interest to every KC citizen.

The Flint Journal has been running a series of stories on a Crosswinds project. A subdivision is being built on soil allegedly contaminated with arsenic. The series apparently began with an October 1 story, which I was unable to access.


http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20001003f3a1uparks.frm
Suspect soil was moved around area
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
By Christofer Machniak
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLINT - The city of Flint and contractors moved potentially contaminated soil from University Park Estates all over the city and possibly throughout Genesee County, apparently violating a state Department of Environmental Quality directive.

Innes said the site's high arsenic level, almost twice the state's safety standard, is not the reason the state wanted to keep the soil at the site.

In a report Sunday, The Journal reported that some health and environmental experts have raised questions about the DEQ's decision to allow homes to be built without cleaning up the arsenic-tainted soil and the city's role in that decision. They said the levels could pose health risks to children who ingest the soil.


http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20001004f4b2madmay.frm
Stanley angered by Journal article on soil contamination
Wednesday, October 4, 2000
By Marlon Vaughn
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLINT - Mayor Woodrow Stanley defended the University Park Estates housing development Tuesday, calling a Flint Journal article about high arsenic levels on the site "a bunch of crap."

The Sunday article said University Park, a 120-home subdivision under construction north of downtown, sits on soil with arsenic levels almost double the state safety limit. The story quotes several sources, including Michigan State University Adjunct Professor Christopher P. Grobbel, who recommended a cleanup of the site.

Stanley suggested that the Journal wants to derail University Park Estates, a project that has been eight years in the making. Its two developers - Crosswinds Communities of Novi and Westminster Abbey of Farmington Hills - have sold most of the 63 homes in the project's first phase.


http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20001005f5a1upark0.frm
Flint halts University Park project, city council seeks own soil test
Thursday, October 5, 2000
By Christofer Machniak
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER (Flint Journal)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLINT - City officials put the brakes on the University Park Estates development Wednesday, responding to concerns over arsenic levels and the removal of potentially contaminated soil from the urban subdivision.

Must be the Indian Summer has arrived in Keweenaw, so folks aren't spending much time at the keyboard. Does anyone know how late the Mountain Lodge golf course will be open this year?

Ken,

The fact that the ZBA did not clarify the definition of CD-EP is enough for any lawyer to have a field day. Not to mention the illegal closed meetings.

Black Bear would be the plaintiff because they are leasing the land from LSLC/IP and they are the ones that have invested their money in this project.

I sure hope that the County Attorney knows what she is doing. Had it been myself, I would have claimed conflict of interest back in April and stepped aside.

Jeff - You posed the question as to who would be liable if Proposal B is defeated (i.e., Bohemia returns to its former zoning). A more interesting question is: to whom would they be liable?

hint: Zoning changes are granted to land owners.

second hint: Who owns the land?

A few weeks ago Bob Grassketchy had a letter in the mining Gazette warning that Keweenaw County would lose the Mountain Lodge in a settlement to Crosswinds if the voters didn't get with the program. The zoning change which was granted - and then successfully called into questioned by referendum - was not granted to Crosswinds. It was granted to Lake Superior Land Company. Construction did not commence until after the referendum petition had been accepted. Looks to me like LSLC should have advised their tenant Crosswinds that the zoning was under a cloud and they should not proceed until the question was settled.

In answer to your question, Jeff, as to who will be liable to Crosswinds when Proposal B is defeated next month: Lake Superior Land Company.

Based on the Constitutional Liability section of the Michigan Township Site provided I would like to make 2 more points.
1. In defense of the ZBA: "Finally, if a township board or commission is unsure of a proposed position on a planning or zoning question, adjourn or table the issue until the necessary formal opinions and information from the township lawyer, engineer or consultant are obtained."(italics mine)
2. In defense of developing a CLUP: "Another step a township can take to avoid zoning liability is to adopt a master plan or be a “planned community.” Failure to adopt a master plan does not by itself invalidate a zoning ordinance. However, courts make every effort to preserve a master plan when it is developed in good faith and is reasonable as a whole, with regard to the needs of the local and general community. A master plan should be carefully prepared, well reasoned, flexible and properly adopted. It should be implemented in a consistent manner after reasonable notice is given. Consult land and community development experts to assist you in following proper statutory procedures."

Jeff,

I would assume the township would be, but I am not an attorney and would not make a guess at something this important.
I hope it does not come to that in the first place, but the situation has come to a point that it seems trouble of a bigger kind could be coming your way.
If say, the vote goes through, and the referendum is overturned that puts the zoning into what I would term a vague (if it is not already there)setting,which opens the township up to liability.
I would hope this would not be the case.
Again I ask does anyone know on what grounds the county atty is appealing this action?
Does she not have to have grounds?
and why is her appealing stopping the board from meeting, she is councel but I thought she was doing this as a private citizen?
I thought this was all over an injunction to stop crosswinds from construction, what has this got to do witht he fact that the judge ordered the board to define low-intensity?
Lots of questions, anyone planning on making any phone calls in the morning?
I would if I were you.
Lisa

As to the question of constitutional liability, I refer to the Michigan Township Association site that Lisa T. posted earlier:
"Zoning ordinances are more likely to be constitutional if they...
clearly articulate permissive and prohibitive uses."(my italics)
This is all the more reason to have the ZBA define specifically what CD-EP will and won't allow for this ski-hill project before the election.
As regarding the unique topography of Section 29(Mt. Bohemia)itself, the MTA site also states this under the Constitutional Liability section:
"Reasonable restrictions are lawful if they are based on different conditions within a zone.(italics mine) Similarly, variances can be granted where unique practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship exist due to conditions specific to the land in question."
Voters need to know exactly what they're voting on with Proposal B for it to be a truly effective political exercise of democratic participation.
Now, my question to Lisa, Ted, Paul or whoever really knows, if "liability" is a genuine possibility with respect to this ski-hill project as some claim, who would be liable?
Grant Township or Keweenaw County?

Heres a question. Say a couple of people like the youngsters who bought the Cliff View had bought on the first zoning board vote which meant that the ski hill would be in this winter. Say for some unjust reason the ski hill couldn't open till next year because of a contempt of court by our county atty. If she was found in contempt would the bar owner have the right to sue the county for loss of revenue? Vote Yes!!!!!

Ted,

You should do what someone I know did, they called Ms. Pelto, and asked her when the meeting of the ZBA would be.
They were told that she(Ms.Pelto) didn't believe there would be a meeting as the county atty is appealing Judge Hoods decision.
So there are the facts folks.
Donna J. is appealing the decision, and there won't be a meeting. Possibly.
Well if everyone is so curious, these are YOUR public officials, CALL THEM! ASK THEM!
You are well with in your rights to do so.
I would like to know the grounds for which she is appealing. Wouldn't you?
It seems my dear Paul, you are correct in your opinions of this situation.
In my opinion, she is going to appeal and hopes that it will take long enough for all of this to happen as to stall the ZBA from making the right definition of low-intensity.
I'm hoping she has a little more to go on this time. I don't believe the judge will be as lenient this time.
I again urge all concerned about this decision to go to the link I posted last week, Ted has, and used it to base a good argument. Good Job Ted!
I worry actions taken by the officials of that township are going to be detrimental for the citizens of this community.
Please speak out against this, call your city officials, find out what the facts are and scream them from the rooftops. Or just come here and post them.
See you soon,
Lisa

Jeff,

I think you are right. The ZBA must clarify CD-EP before the Nov 7th election. That will have a major impact on it's outcome.

I don't understand why they haven't met yet!

Who is stalling this process?

It will be interesting to find that out.

Ted

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/ski8_20001008.htm

Keweenaw doesn't want Detroit-style progress

Ski hill becomes a mountainous issue
October 8, 2000

By JOHN FLESHER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Ken and Ted: I agree that PUD would be the optimum zoning ordinance for the ski-hill project if it had been adopted at the start. Mr. Glieberman has publicly stated that the request to change the mountain itself to RS was so that they could build cabins up there. If CD-EP allows hunting lodges, why couldn't it allow cabins? If the ZBA would define "specifically" what CD-EP will and won't allow before the November 7th referendum vote, it would be more helpful for the voters. Especially those who like the ski-hill but don't want development to run amuk on the mountain. A NO vote means the mountain returns to CD-EP, in which case, it seems to me anyway, both ski-lift apparatus and cabins would be allowed. See below for what the CD-EP zoning currently allows(lifted from Charles Buck's Keweenaw Liberty Library):

Ken,

I would agree that the PUD zoning would have been appropriate had the Zoning Board and the Developer agreed on it initially. This was not the case, the Developer approached the County with their plans and asked for the zoning to be changed to RS. It wasn't until the zoning change was about to be made that someone (maybe Gary?) said "I think I want to have control over how the developer uses his land". Mt Bohemia has the potential to become the ideal venue for extreme skiing, just because someone doesn't like to ski should they impose their views on the OWNER of the property?

I am a firm believer in the rights of a property owner. My father had some lake shore property out by five mile point. He was planning on putting a camp out there so he could fish. Before he had the chance to build it the DNR came through and said that because there was a sand dune there he couldn't build anything.

I believe that with all the issues that have appeared over the past 6 months (Illegal meetings, trespassing, questionable referendum procedure, conflict of interest by county officials, etc.) that the County is very open to liability. At this point in time to zone Mt Bohemia PUD would be like telling the developer we are now going to let Susie plan you hill for you.

Do you think that would work?

I would be more than happy to debate this issue with any reasonable, responsible person at any time.

Ted Belej

p.s. Thank you for the compliment.

A zoning change was made earlier this year in regard to Mount Bohemia. Next month Proposal B will ask Keweenaw voters to either approve that change or overturn it. I would like to hear a debate between two people who have very logically expressed opposing positions in this matter. (And I'm not refering to Lonnie Glieberman and Gary Kohs.) Some of the clearest thinking has come from George Hite, who opposed the form of the original change, and Ted Belej who has given well considered reasons for ok'ing it (see last week's Keweenaw Issues).

Here is an exerpt from a letter by Mr. Hite to the Keweenaw County Board of Commissioners before the change was made (full text of the letter is at George's Eagle Harbor):

---

Quote:

"I urge you to refrain from zoning 700 acres in the Lac La Belle area to the Resort Service District, a classification that permits stores, motels, restaurants, service stations, trailer parks and a host of other such uses. If a ski facility is the intended use, it would seem to make more sense to amend the current zoning classification by adding ski facilities as a special permit use. This would accommodate the intended use, without opening a "Pandora’s box" of minimally regulated and uncoordinated commercial development in what many regard as one of our county’s most beautiful areas."

"If Crossroads’ intended use is more than a ski facility, as I believe it to be, then the most appropriate procedure for county review and decision would clearly seem to be the Planned Unit Development procedure. Development proposals of the scale and complexity suggested in the Crossroads’ presentations, are exactly why the Planned Unit Development procedure was incorporated into the county’s zoning ordinance."

---

Hello out there, what a great morning! Cold, the wood pile is almost done, and its already starrting to pay off. Once again thank you Lake Superior Land for issueing me the cutting permit of the tops and scrap leftovers. I was pleased to go into the bush on a select cut site that was complete. What a beatiful job! I have been in this area for a long time now and this logger did a outstanding job of plucking out the sticks so you could hardly tell that they were there. I am glad to see common sense tactics being carried out by Lake Superior Land. Oh Gary if you are reading this is that scrap construction burn pile on LSL's property cleaned up yet? Thanks if you had time to get back up here to do your long overdo task.

I have been also impressed with the responce to this site once again. I would have stayed with Garys site but he choose to go out of the area to promote his paper. I don't know how that site is going but the true brains behind his site and this site are at this site so I am going to stick with the Dough.

I am trying my best not to rant and rave, (last week my third post had to be transferd for lack of tact). I will try in the future to refrain from calling our county atty. a dumb a--, and no more cuts to Gary like your full of ----. Nope I turned a new leaf.

I believe that last week I was asked where do I get my ideas from? Well I just listen to the general public and talk to all, PRO & CON. On the subject of stalling the Judges ORDER to have the board meet. Our county atty. has taken it upon herself not to get the facts to the public. She wants us as confused as possible in hopes of getting the old people flustered and swing votes. No way these old dogs are smarter than she thinks!!! We need a strong economy in this county! This will happen with a little bit of common sense. I believe that all of us can do this with a little bit of understanding and also with our ears open, minds clear, to new IDEAS.

Lake Superior Land will be here forever if we approach them in a reasonable way.

SHOW ME SOME COMMON SENSE VOTE YES!!!

EDITOR'S NOTE: On each new week, please include first and last name with your first message, indicate any "handle" or nickname you will use for convenience on subsequent posts. The writer of this note is Paul Mihelcich of Eagle River