LANSING ? Oxford Village’s bid to change its form of government will move forward in the legal process.
In a 3-0 vote, the Michigan State Boundary Commission Jan. 18 determined the village’s petition to incorporate everything within its existing boundaries as a city was legally sufficient and set a public hearing for 4 p.m. Thursday, May 3 at Oxford Middle School
‘I thought it was a good decision to proceed forward,? said village President George Del Vigna, who attended the commission meeting. ‘I want to get it in front of the people and let the people vote one way or another.?
On Tuesday night, the village council voted to establish a cityhood advisory committee to research the various issues involving incorporation and make recommendations. Appointments to the committee must still be approved by council.
The boundary commission listened and asked questions as attorneys Thomas Ryan, representing the village, and William Fahey, representing the township, presented their cases as to whether the petition should be accepted or rejected.
Most of the arguments centered around details pertaining to the accuracy, clarity and consistency of the village map and legal description filed with the petition.
Debate over the precise location of the Lakeville Road boundary line in the northeast corner of the existing village/proposed city took place along with discussion over what was previously known as Mud Lake, but is now Erin Lake.
Ryan called the Lakeville Road boundary a ‘minor issue that does not affect anybody’s rights.?
‘The boundary that we’ve used is exactly what the boundary commission suggested be the legal description in 1982,? said Ryan, referring to a previous failed attempt by the village to become a city.
Fahey argued these ‘certainly are not legal technicalities that the boundary commission can or should overlook.?
‘I don’t see those things as being inconsequential or unsubstantial or minor,? he said.
The lawyers also debated the legality of submitting a different map ? a version revised in 2006 ? than the one supposedly shown to signers when the petition was originally circulated in 2005.
‘It is not sufficient to submit a legally sufficient map after the petition has been signed,? wrote Fahey in a document stating the township’s objections to the petition. ‘The problem here … is that the village obtained the proffered signatures … before it made substantial changes to the petition and the Part I map to correct deficiencies in the original submission that the Boundary Commission staff discovered. Thus, none of the signers were allowed to review a legally sufficient Part I map before they signed the petition.?
To help back his claim, Fahey cited 1997 boundary commission decisions involving a proposed annexation of land from Pinconning Twp. to the City of Pinconning.
Back then, the boundary commission rejected the petition because the map was not legally sufficient. When the petitioners attempted to submit the identical petition with a corrected map, the commission rejected it as well on the grounds that ‘the signers of the petition … were not shown a map that meets the requirements.?
Fahey argued that the village map must include details like identifiable roads, section lines, existing local government boundaries and major geographic features.
‘All those things have to be on the map that’s shown to the petition signers,? he said. ‘Clearly, the map that apparently they were using at that time didn’t have any of those details on it (that’s why it was rejected during the boundary commission staff’s pre-review).?
Fahey said the law states the map shall clearly show the territory to be incorporated.
‘We have no evidence in this case that the petitioners were shown such a map,? he said.
‘I disagree with the premise that you have to show petitioners a legally sufficient map,? stated Ryan, noting that a different, less detailed map was all that was necessary to circulate with the petition, which was done.
Ryan argued the signers didn’t need a highly detailed map to know which village properties were included in the proposed incorporation and if theirs was one of them.
‘We’re talking about an urban area …We’re not talking about some unincorporated area outside in some township,? Ryan said. ‘The village boundaries have been set for many, many years. Village people know who they are and the township people know who they are.?
‘When you look at the map that was presented to the people who were signing (the petition), it shows (the boundaries of) the village as we know it today,? Del Vigna later told this reporter. ‘I think most people were aware that that’s what they were looking at.?
In the end, the state Boundary Commission was not persuaded by Fahey’s arguments against the petition’s legal sufficiency based on the issues he raised concerning the village map.
‘If I lived in the village and I got a petition that said we want to become a city (yet) remain within the existing boundaries of the current village, I believe that would tell me whether my house or any property I own was part of that incorporation,? said Robin Beltramini, of Troy, the local commissioner representing cities.
‘I don’t mind Mr. Fahey’s perceptions about the precision that he would like to see,? explained Commission Chairman Kenneth Verburg, but ‘we’re interested in achieving the general policies that are articulated in this rather than all the specific details.?
In Verburg’s mind, as long as the boundary commission and public have a ‘clear understanding? of what geography’s going to be included and excluded in the proposed city, the commission has a ‘responsibility to be reasonable in the application of this law; much as any judge would.?
Township Supervisor Bill Dunn, who attended the commission meeting, said he would like to see the village petition’s legal sufficiency determined by a court.
‘No offense to the boundary commission, but it seemed like they ignored the law and basically said, ‘close enough,?? explained Dunn, noting he will recommend to the township board that it direct Fahey to take the petition before a circuit court judge for a ruling.them.