Take Offense at City's Defense of Spence

[XLFD]

The two hour plus June 12, 2017 Ludington City Council meeting had more under discussion than a couple environmental issues, and updating the public on studying the possible road diet of Ludington Avenue.  Most of these issues were routine approval of events held at local parklands, but an off-agenda issue coming once again to light was more than interesting.

At 1:50:30 into that meeting, I arose from my chair to talk about Spence Riggs (pictured aband what I perceive as unethical conduct in his first year of office.  I laid out the basic case on March 3rd in this article which explored how he had purchased a property late last year and shortly thereafter began a directed plan in order to achieve his goal to further develop his land, which involved getting on the Ludington Planning Commission (LPC), rewriting the text of zoning law that prohibited him from developing his parcel, advocating that at the LPC and at the city council and never explaining before any action, discussion, or vote that he stood to benefit greatly from the outcome of his 'public' actions.

In the early June article  To Dis-Spence with Ethical Conduct  public records received from the City through FOIA and 'continued developments' illustrated and complemented the previous research and conclusions.  With such compelling arguments and evidence suggesting a unethical conduct, I used my two minutes of open public comment to address this troubling issue.  It should be noted that both Spence Riggs [1:05:20 into the video] and Robert Gibson [1:42:00] had attended the meeting and went to the podium during the meeting to talk of Live Ludington campaign billboards and answer questions about a mostly unrelated rezoning issue respectively.  They left almost immediately after their appearance.

XLFD (1:52:50):  "At the June 6th Planning Commission, Commissioner Spence Riggs recused himself for the first time for discussing and voting on issues involving his lot at 715 North Lavinia.  As noted at the last meeting, this recusal was too little too late for the highly unethical course of action he has taken to profit from his public service.

Records show that he brought a wide lot in September 2016, talked with developer Robert Gibson about building more on it.  He then figured out that he could not build more with the existing zoning law at that time, and petitioned city officials to get on the Planning Commission about two months later.  Less than a week later, the commission brought up accommodating small lots and small houses for the very first time. 

Riggs officially was on the commission this January when he was immediately assigned to the text subcommittee for drafting this ordinance which allowed him the ability to split his land into three and build on the two undeveloped lots.  He introduced and voted for it at the February meeting, then advocated for this zoning law change at the end of February at this venue. The council passed it and it went into effect in late March.

One month later, he splits his lot unlawfully, aided by Carol Ann Foote to bypass the process this city uses to approve lot splits, and which is codified in our city code.  He gets verbal approval, then sells for an undisclosed sum, the lots which are not lawfully existent to Robert Gibson. 

Never once through the process has he disclosed his conflicts of interests in turning his false lots into cash cows by actively changing zoning law and actively ignoring city code law.  Never once has the city tried to restrain this unethical behavior by their officer... [at this point my two minutes were up, I had only a summary conclusion left]."

City officials wound up addressing these concerns, unfortunately, they did so after the videographer ran out of recording juice just under the two hour mark.  Thankfully, the city clerk kept fairly detailed notes of the exchange in the June 12, 2017 LCC meeting minutes, which became available over this last weekend, but have yet to be approved by the council.  In relevant part it relates:

"Councilor Johnson asked if there was any merit to the allegations made in public comment against Spence Riggs and what he has done with those lots.

City Manager Shay commented that there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on June 6th and there were two public hearings to consider requests for special land uses to construct a single family dwelling on a lot less than 60’ wide. Spence Riggs owns three lots on North Lavinia Street which were originally platted as 50’ lots.

City Manager Shay stated that there is a distinction between parcels and lots. These 3 lots were originally platted as 50’ wide lots. At some point in the past these 3 lots were combined into a single parcel. The issue was to split the parcel to 3 parcels, so one parcel to one lot, how this was originally platted. He stated there was not splitting of a lot. These lots are still the original platted 50’ lots.

At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Spence Riggs did recuse himself during the public hearing and the reason for recusal as he was looking at selling these 3 lots to Bob Gibson for him to build smaller homes and it was Spence Riggs intention to buy one of these smaller homes. Spence Riggs would profit from this financially which is why he recused himself from discussion and vote on this matter.

Since you could originally build on these 50’ lots even without the recent change in the zoning ordinance. The only thing that the new zoning ordinance did with respect to originally platted 50’ wide lots was to allow a house to be built with a 500-square foot minimum rather than an 800-square foot minimum. It was not accurate for the statement that the City is ignoring its City Code requirements to get City Council approval for splitting this parcel is incorrect information.

City Attorney Wilson stated that the subtext of the comments made during public comment were that one of the Planning Commission members has a stake in the outcome of the decision by the Planning Commission. City Attorney Wilson stated that Planning Commissions have no authority other than to recommend to City Council further action to a situation. He further stated that by Michigan Law, Planning Commissions are not supposed to be neutral and read MCL 125.3815 to the City Council. He stated that you are supposed to have competing interests on the Planning Commission which is why they make recommendations and not decisions for the City."

If that seems like confused muddle to you after the city clerk did her best to make it understandable, it should.  It mostly defies what the record shows, and what the law says.  Here are hard-to-refute refutations of the words uttered by Shay and Wilson. 

Spence Riggs owns three lots on North Lavinia Street which were originally platted as 50’ lots.  City Manager Shay stated that there is a distinction between parcels and lots. These 3 lots were originally platted as 50’ wide lots. At some point in the past these 3 lots were combined into a single parcel. The issue was to split the parcel to 3 parcels, so one parcel to one lot, how this was originally platted. He stated there was not splitting of a lot. These lots are still the original platted 50’ lots.

According to definitions of the Ludington's Zoning Code they have defined:

There is no legal definition for 'parcel' in the zoning code, but the dictionaries I have reviewed have shown the term defined as 'a tract or plot of land' and to be synonymous with 'lot'; Shay seems to do that himself.  The lot/parcel Riggs brought in September at 715 N Lavinia has this legal description and layout

Shay is right in saying that somewhen in the past these three lots were connected together in creating the single parcel (aka bigger lot).  But the 'description of record' states that 715 N Lavinia is a 150' wide lot, which needs to go through the formal process of lot splitting.  By city law, Section 50-191 to 50-196, such a split needs to be formally reviewed by the Planning Commission, recommended to council, and the city council must formally approve of it and record it.  Riggs is recorded as having only one lot, not three, he cannot split his lot as he did solely on approval of the city's assessor, who does not have that authority. 

Since you could originally build on these 50’ lots even without the recent change in the zoning ordinance. The only thing that the new zoning ordinance did with respect to originally platted 50’ wide lots was to allow a house to be built with a 500-square foot minimum rather than an 800-square foot minimum.

John Shay's own memorandum in the council packets for the February 27 (p. 89) and March 6, 2017 refutes his words most dramatically:

If you don't believe John Shay's statements back in February, the next two pages in that packet has Community Development Director Heather Tykoski saying: "In order to address the rising need for smaller housing units and to make the 30-50' lots buildable, some adjustments to the current zoning ordinance is needed." 

Even Councilor Moonbeam, also on the LPC, said so in the March 6, 2017 LCC meeting minutes:  "Councilor Winczewski explained that the foregoing Ordinance No. 353-17 would allow, as a special land use, the construction of single-family houses on lots less than 60 feet wide... There are many lots that are less than 60 feet wide in the City and these lots are unbuildable..."

City Attorney Wilson stated that Planning Commissions have no authority other than to recommend to City Council further action to a situation.

Wilson's assertions are mostly irrelevant to the ethical issues claimed, but he does underestimate the powers of planning commissioners.  By law, a planning commission's business must be done at open meetings, which means that minutes must be kept regarding deliberations and decisions that body makes.  They are most often responsible for drafting zoning ordinances to be approved by the council.

Which is what happened with the 'small lot/small house" ordinance.  The record shows Spence Riggs immediately getting into the Text Committee to draft that proposed ordinance in January.  He then argued for and voted for the proposal in the Planning Commission's February meeting without ever indicating that he had made a recent land purchase that would benefit greatly from the changes.  He then came before the council on February 27, brazenly representing himself as the spokesman for the LPC and speaking in broad generalities of why the proposal was a Godsend to the city, never telling them that he had plans with his property that depended on the passing of the proposal.

Mason County Growth Alliance (MCGA) Director Spence Riggs' buddy on the MCGA Board, John Shay, told outright lies and made glaring omissions in Riggs' defense, but he and Attorney Wilson cannot erase the early ethical lapses and the continuing disregard of state and local laws by Spence Riggs, with the complicity of his friends at city hall, and his fellow commissioners in the LPC.  If he finds it this easy to use his public service in order to achieve private gains, it should make you wonder about how he approaches his other job.

Which may be in jeopardy if the MCGA can't arrange to get more funding over the next three years...

[Brad]

If the city won't check their own improprietiea then who will..? The state AG..? Or is there no recourse for citizens?

[Willy]

It seems to me that if there is no record that the lots were combined then they remain separate lots and since any lot was legally established prior to any ordinance change they then would be grandfathered in and should be allowed to used for building purposes.  The only exception I can think of that could make the lots non conforming is if the City changed the square footage requirement for lot sizes in order for a dwelling to be erected. The road frontage and lot area are 2 separate issues.

[stump]

Willy, the problem is that the city ordinance states no smaller than 60 foot wide for buildable  lots, not 50. So with the property combined together to make a 150 foot lot it was buildable. So for Shay to say it was 3 separate lots originally probably was correct, he just didn't finish with but not buildable lots.

[Willy]

I understand that but what I'm saying is that if these lots were created years ago, before zoning was implemented or when lot widths were allowed to be under 60 ft, then they would still be allowed to be used for construction even if after the newer ordinance was changed to 60 ft because they would come under the "grandfather" clause. If It can be proven that they were combined to create the larger lot and it's on record then those lots are no longer considered single lots and therefore they would be required to undergo another subdividing process which could only be done under existing zoning laws.  But from what I read, there is no record of the lots being combined. If this is so then those lots are still legal at the 50 ft. width and can be used for residential construction.

[stump]

I guess it all comes down to on this particular property what the present recorded description is on that plot of land. I mean before all these current changes. On the grand fathered in ? I think that would depend on the writing in the 60 lot minimum change back when ever that was.  As you stated I would think what ever the minimum was  back then would remain unchanged for those undersized properties.

[XLFD]

As noted in the article, the property has a recorded legal description of "manufacturer's addition, lots 16, 17 & 18, block 5", and the illustration shows the lots are connected into the one big lot that represents "715 N Lavinia". 

But Willy does raise a good point about whether it requires the burdensome process described in Section 50-191 to 50-196 if it has historically had the three lots within.  The best way to research it is to look at how this section came to be law, the reasons behind the process, and this is rather easy because the law is not that old.  Back in 2010 this section on lot splits came into being when the Elk's Lodge was splitting.  From March 15, 2010 LCC:  "Councilor Engblade explained that the City was approached by the Elks Lodge to split the property into two separate sections. The City Attorney explained that an ordinance is required to be able to split any lot in the City.

City Manager Shay explained that both lots would have to have their own water and sewer connection and the request would go to the Zoning Administrator to make sure the application was complete prior to being sent to the Planning
Commission for recommendation of approval to the City Council." 

Then the April 6, 2010 LPC meeting had them discussing the issue's applicability to them, and the ordinance was passed at the April 12, 2010 LCC meeting where the following was noted in the minutes: 

"Councilor Engblade summarized the ordinance which would allow a lot to be split if it meets specific criteria, including that each lot complies with the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance’s setback and other size requirements for a lot, and assurances that each lot has its own water and sewer connections. The applicant would submit the application to the Zoning Administrator and then to the Planning Commission prior to being approved or disapproved by the City Council. His Honor Mayor Henderson stated that this ordinance is not specifically for the Elks’ Lodge which has recently made a request to split their property, but that it is to update the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow lot splitting any where in the City. Councilor Holman explained that this ordinance did come before the Planning Commission and they also approved it."

The two lots that Riggs tried to make are undeveloped, they don't have their own water and sewer connections and have not otherwise gone through the hoops and whistles that the city created in 2010 to make lot splits difficult to do, and what they have done with the Lakeshore Lumber property (which was also made up of smaller lots). 

If Riggs is able to split his lot into three so easily, in apparent contradiction to the letter and the spirit of the law, then in the future it should be as easy for anybody to split their lot in the same manner, if historically it has two or more sub-lots in it.  There are lots (no pun intended) of these in town.