17. February 2005 • Murph
Email this article
The Ann Arbor Planning Commission last night rejected the school district’s request that the new high school site be annexed into the city, a requirement for receiving water and sewer service, and also rejected the school’s site plan. Whether either of these actions is meaningful is another question. The Ann Arbor News notes,
The [site plan] rejection has no impact on the new school since school district projects are exempt from municipal zoning and building codes. The Ann Arbor School District submitted the plan as a courtesy.
And,
In 1994, the city and township came up with an agreement that the township will not contest annexation of the school land. Planning Commissioner Eric Lipson and school Trustee Nelson said that agreement automatically annexes the land once requested by the school district.
But it was unclear to other members of the Planning Commission whether the city had to grant that annexation.
« Previous Article Roadblock Tour protests I-69 plan
Next Article Students Stage Walkout At Local High School »
|
—Lou Glorie Feb. 18 '05 - 09:24PM #
Of course, if the school’s plan is dependent, is the City Council going to vote against the schools’ plan? No. Much as I would like them to take a stand and ask for a site plan that isn’t totally crap (Where does the school district think they are? Canton?), I don’t think they’ll do anything that can be interpreted as voting against a school.
—Murph Feb. 19 '05 - 01:29AM #
The District’s plan is not completely dependent on getting annexed. They can build on the land, and plan to, destroying most of the environment there. Of course they would much prefer having city utilities than not.
The City Council, like the Planning Commission, might very well vote against annexation. Some of the Commissioners lamented that their hands were tied as far as voting for annexation because of the 1994 Boundary Policy Agreement between AA Township and the City. However, though that agreement states that the township shouldn’t object to releasing the land, the agreement says nothing about the city having to annex it. Some may argue it is implied, but it is not spelled out in the agreement.
Some commissioners voted against annexation as a public protest (believing annexation was inevitable), but actually, based on the agreement’s language, the city/council is not obligated to actually annex. They could vote no. If they feel the plan is bad enough, and contrary enough to the city’s master plan, Greenbelt, traffic safety, etc., they could vote no. Everyone should contact the city council and tell them to vote no on annexation.
There will be more news, but I can’t go into it here.
Do go to the website http://www.proposedhighschool.org to keep up to date (we update it nearly daily). Tell everyone to. Link to it liberally.
—Alan Pagliere Feb. 24 '05 - 03:02AM #
Also in question were two legal issues:
First, are school districts actually exempt from all non-zoning ordinances (those that have to do with “health, safety and welfare”). This was thrown into doubt in the Northville case in the Michigan Supreme Court. This would have great impact on the school district’s short-sighted plan for traffic near, and wetlands on, the site.
Second, the 1994 Boundary Policy Agreement that outlines “orderly annexation” between AA Township and the City of AA, and which the district was relying on, may also be less than binding.
Things are not going as smoothly as they might. There are public officials in both municipalities with grave concerns about the school plan.
—Alan Pagliere Feb. 25 '05 - 10:47PM #
—NotMurph Sep. 30 '05 - 12:02AM #
—Brandon Sep. 30 '05 - 01:30AM #
http://www.canton-mi.org/CPAEC/about.asp
So I wouldn’t say Canton totally sucks.
—John Q. Sep. 30 '05 - 02:51AM #
—Brandon Sep. 30 '05 - 06:45AM #