The provision for a petition is included in the state’s zoning enabling legislation. [.pdf of Michgian Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006]

In relevant part, it reads:

125.3403 Amendment to zoning ordinance; filing of protest petition; vote.
Sec. 403. (1) An amendment to a zoning ordinance by a city or village is subject to a protest petition as required by this subsection. If a protest petition is filed, approval of the amendment to the zoning ordinance shall require a 2/3 vote of the legislative body, unless a larger vote, not to exceed a 3/4 vote, is required by ordinance or charter. The protest petition shall be presented to the legislative body of the city or village before final legislative action on the amendment and shall be signed by 1 or more of the following:
(a) The owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change.
(b) The owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change.
(2) Publicly owned land shall be excluded in calculating the 20% land area requirement under subsection (1).

I believe that even if a city did not include the provision for protest petition in its own ordinances [as Ann Arbor does] then a protest petition could still be filed under the state statute. The state statute in clearly intended to set the rules for this sort of thing — from the description of its intent included in the act:

AN ACT to codify the laws regarding local units of government regulating the development and use of land; to provide for the adoption of zoning ordinances; to provide for the establishment in counties, townships, cities, and villages of zoning districts; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain officials; to provide for the assessment and collection of fees; to authorize the issuance of bonds and notes; to prescribe penalties and provide remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

The developer take-away is, “In Ann Arbor, don’t try to come up with creative solutions, just do the bare minimum and stay away from neighborhood groups.” What a disappointment. So many folks are consumed by the “anti” agenda that they can’t see a decent opportunity to restore some very meaningful historic homes in Ann Arbor.

What’s worse is that they’re pushing to pass this horrid “historic district,” which will guarantee that current and future owners will not do fixes on these buildings because the rules are too stringent and repairs too expensive.

A question for the writer or other readers: I’m under the impression that this supermajority rule comes from the State. Do they “allow” cities to have this rule, or “require” it?

Whatever happened to open government?

Did the City Council ever pass a resolution authorizing the “shielding” of board members? Or was the deletion of contact information done “administratively”, by dark of night?

Let’s suppose someone has an idea s/he wants a board to consider, but is afraid that the idea won’t fly and is embarrassed to appear at a public meeting to discuss it. In a normal world, that citizen would be able to call up an individual member of the board and talk.

But not in the mayor’s world. No, sirree!

I see the “Cone of Silence” is still firmly in place around City Hall.