[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ RE: / Judges side with state in wetlands development case



Aerial Photos and Topo of site.

 

http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=11&Z=17&X=753&Y=11813&W=3

 

-Tim-

 

Timothy Carpenter, P.E., Pres.,
GeoDynamics Consultants, Inc.
5043 Whitlow Ct.
Commerce Twp., Mi 48382
248-363-4529 (voice & fax)
248-766-1629 (cell)
geodynamics@comcast.net (primary)
geodynamics@att.net (secondary)

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of tschfam@aol.com
Sent:
Friday, July 29, 2005 1:06 PM
To: Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org; enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: Re: E-M:/ RE: / Judges side with state in wetlands development case

 

Here is the link to the full text opinion:

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Woiwode <Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org>
To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Sent:
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:30:00 -0400
Subject: RE: E-M:/ RE: / Judges side with state in wetlands development case

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enviro-Mich message from "Anne Woiwode" <Anne.Woiwode@sierraclub.org>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

While memory is a dangerous thing to rely on, I recall the particulars of

this case actually had to do with the owner subdividing and developing

pieces of a single piece of land until the final parcel that remained had

such a large proportion of wetland that the proposed development of that

piece would have required significant wetland filling.  The challenge raised

by the applicant was the claim that the state was "taking" the land by

denying the wetland permit application.  The claims by the state, led at the

time, as I recall, by then Assistant AG and now Deputy DEQ Director Skip

Pruss, and bolstered by amicus from all over the country, were that the

decisions to subdivide had led to a self-created "hardship" and that a

takings claim was entirely bogus.

 

Others with better filing systems and access to the current decision are

welcome to correct my memory!

 

Anne Woiwode

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Enviro-Mich message from JBull51264@aol.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It was a pretty blatant case too.  The owners knew full well that they were

purchasing a parcel of land that had large areas of wetlands that could not

be

developed.   They claim the state diminished the value of the land.  The

land

never had the value they claimed.  If a developer buys a parcel with a lake

on

it would that developer be able to assume he could fill it in to put up a

shopping mall, and charge the state for not letting him do so.  Just crazy.

 

There is a latin phrase that should cover this situation:  "caveat emptor,"

or

"Let the buyer beware."   This case has been going on for 15 years I think.

As

I recall it had to do with the owner wanting to fill in wetlands to build a

restaurant in Oakland County.

 

==============================================================

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental

and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

 

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to

majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info

enviro-mich"

==============================================================

 

 

==============================================================

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental

and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

 

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to

majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"

==============================================================