The township had petitioned the county to allow another election, one that could reverse the previous Pontiac annexation approval, based on Michigan's Home Rule Act.
"The Legislature's clear intent in passing the act was that if a petition seeking to incorporate, detach, add or consolidate territory met the statutory requirements, the electors of each city, village or township to be affected were entitled to vote on the matter," Kuhn said in his ruling.
The Oakland county commission had voted to approve the election, but County Executive L. Brooks Patterson had vetoed it. Kuhn originally upheld Patterson's veto. However, Kuhn then ruled Tuesday that in his opinion, the election should continue, effectively nullifying Patterson's veto.
Kuhn says Patterson had the right to veto any matter by the commission, but that neither the commission or Patterson had any right to approve or deny an election. The only issue before the county was whether the petitions created and submitted by Bloomfield met the requirements of the Home Rule Act.
Kuhn says the township met the requirements.
Now, votes in the city of Pontiac and Bloomfield Township will decide whether the annexation can take place.
Craig Schubiner of Harbor Cos. wants to build a $2-billion development in Pontiac. The property is supposed to have a 15-story office building, hotel and apartment buildings, a large movie theater, and other commercial uses built on the site.
Bloomfield wouldn't allow the project, so Schubiner brought the annexation idea to Pontiac voters, who approved the land split in September.
David Payne, supervisor of Bloomfield Township, says the annexation proceeding initiated by the developer is a blatant attempt at circumventing established zoning ordinances with the goal of destroying the overall character and integrity of the township.In his judgment, Kuhn compared the issue to a case where the very worst that could happen would be that the public would vote upon a question of general interest.
"That vote should not be denied the people unless the petition clearly fails to meet the statutory requirements," Kuhn writes. "Here the petition met the statutory requirements. The vote on the detachment issue should go forward.notwithstanding the county executive's veto."
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Once you are an ALM Digital Member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking commercial real estate news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
*May exclude premium content© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
