Mr. Kaiser updated the commission on the status of the development’s request for the |
|
City to vacate the streets with the intention of allowing Walnut Brook Estates to close |
|
the development off at Rockhaven and South Boulevard. At the June 25, 1997 |
|
meeting City Council approved the vacation of the streets on a 6-1 vote, and the |
|
Mayor subsequently vetoed that action. Mr. Kaiser has sent a memo to the Mayor |
|
before sharing it with the Planning Commission because he knew the Mayor would |
|
have needed to act by Saturday, June 28, 1997 to veto Council’s action. Mr. Kaiser |
|
wrote the Mayor on his own, without the request or insistence of anyone else, asking |
|
him to consider what Council did and the various repercussions of that action. Mr. |
|
Kaiser made it clear that he was writing on his own behalf and not as the result of any |
|
discussion or decision by any other person on the Planning Commission. Mr. Kaiser |
|
understood that this item was expected to be discussed at tomorrow night’s City |
|
Council meeting on July 2, 1997 with the intention of overriding the Mayor’s veto. |
|
Council is not required to act that quickly to override the veto. In his memo Mr. |
|
Kaiser avoided discussing the relative merits and demerits of Council’s decision, |
|
although he did comment on what he thought the important issues were and what the |
|
criteria should have been for considering the public health, safety and welfare of the |
|
residents of the City of Rochester Hills. Mr. Kaiser’s memo also cited a section in the |
|
Municipal Planning Act that would seem to indicate that Council’s action was an |
|
unlawful one -- if not voidable in that no council, just as no corporate directorship, can |
|
commit an act that they have no power to do. The Municipal Planning Act would |
|
seem to say that Council should have sent this to the Planning Commission first for a |
|
public hearing and a recommendation to City Council. The Mayor has brought this |
|