HANCOCK -- New information concerning a 1941 deed through which the City of Hancock acquired its Government Lot 5, presented at the Sept. 19, 2007, meeting of the Hancock City Council, could result in the City's creating a public park rather than selling part of the acreage for residential development.
After hearing from several local residents, still opposed to the sale of land near the recreation area at the mouth of Swedetown Creek and the Portage waterway, the City Council took no action on a recommendation from the Hancock Planning Commission to sell part of Government Lot 5.*
The Council, instead, directed City Manager Glenn Anderson to do some research on the property's potential for becoming a public park.
Patricia Toczydlowski spoke at the Sept. 19 City Council meeting concerning the 1941 deed from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that conveyed the property to the City for $1 with the understanding that it be used solely for park and recreational purposes. The deed included a reversion clause that provided for returning the land to the State of Michigan should it not be used for these purposes.
At the Sept. 19, 2007, Hancock City Council meeting, Patricia Toczydlowski addresses the Council concerning two deeds for transferring ownership of Government Lot 5, including recreational land at Swedetown Creek, from the State of Michigan to the City. The original deed was filed in 1941. Also pictured are Councilmen Bill Laitila, center, and James Hainault. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)In May 2003 a Quit Claim Deed reversed the reverter clause of the original deed; however, Toczydlowski explained, it still binds the City, in accepting the deed, to A) use the land for recreation while owning it, B) sell the property for fair value when the city no longer needs the land and C) discusses how sale proceeds are to be handled by the County Treasurer with a full account given to the State of Michigan.
"I think there are some real deficiencies in the title report," Toczydlowski said.
She added two questions for the Council:
1) What is the councilors' and the planning commission members' understanding of the distribution of sale proceeds to be handled by the county Treasurer and accounted for to the State of Michigan (not described in the title report)?
2) What process was used and what factors were considered to constitute that the city no longer needs the land?
"I would suggest that, given the breadth of public comment asking that this land remain dedicated for park and recreational purposes, as expressly understood at the time of the original transfer -- and that's been in effect for 60 years to date -- that this is not a decision to be made lightly," Toczydlowski said. "Need is not defined and could serve as a basis for a lawsuit regarding a sale for other than park and recreational purposes."
Toczydlowski noted she was not threatening the Council but pointing out what she perceived to be the proper diligence required given the ambiguity (about "need") in the document.
"In my mind they (City officials) haven't demonstrated that they don't need this property anymore," Toczydlowski said.
According to Michigan law, the deeds also give the public the right of ingress and egress over and across all of the described property lying along any watercourse or stream, she added.
Toczydlowski said she wondered if any of the Councillors saw potential conflict in selling for private use land over which the public may have access rights.
"I don't believe that a sale of this land should even remain under consideration," Toczydlowski said, "but I do feel that these issues I raise really need to be more fully researched before a sale should even be considered and certainly before one should be voted upon."
Susan Burack of Hancock mentioned the "unprecedented response from the public to this issue."
Noting that we live in a democracy where -- when the people speak -- the people in office need to listen, Burack said, "I hope that you will consider the overwhelming concern of the people in this community."
Hancock resident Allyson Jabusch pointed out the value of the Swedetown Creek watershed in Government Lot 5 and gave several reasons why she believes it should be protected.
"This area protects trees, plants, wetlands, sandbars, songbirds and probably even fish," Jabusch said.
She pointed out that a healthy watershed provides good habitat for fish and wildlife, provides an attractive place for recreation, increases property values, filters contaminants to keep water clean, slows storm-water run-off and reduces flooding. By not selling this land the City would preserve trees and shrubs that slow run-off.
Jabusch said she wondered if this area had been studied or observed for flooding potential before a sale was considered.
"This is a well used recreational area (as evidenced by the trail)," Jabusch said. "Citizens of Hancock have already incorporated this area as a park just by the usage (without any cost to the City)."
Jabusch also cited Pat Coleman of U.P. Engineers and Architects in his presentation on the access management plan at the (August) Council meeting as saying the way a community looks helps improve property values.**
"Quality of life depends on having access to parks, waterfronts and riverfronts," Jabusch said. "All of this open space needs to be saved for continued public use and for the wildlife (including migratory birds)."
Jabusch noted the Council has an opportunity to show valuable leadership for the future -- leadership "that works for the community good, to balance the benefits for the few against the benefits for many."
Joe Kaplan, who has written to City officials concerning the Swedetown Creek habitat for migratory birds, said he was interested in hearing more from the Council -- feedback from them on the information provided by the public.
Joe Kaplan, who has urged Hancock City officials to dedicate the entire Swedetown Creek area as a City nature preserve, addresses the Council at their Sept. 19 meeting, asking for feedback. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)Evan McDonald, executive director of the Keweenaw Land Trust, said if the Council should decide to sell land in Govt. Lot 5 despite the loss of public access, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat, then a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be shared with the public. He noted the Hancock Schools are looking for a place to do environmental stewardship and Swedetown Creek offers that possibility.
Addressing Hancock City Council members at their Sept. 19 meeting, Evan McDonald, executive director of the Keweenaw Land Trust, suggests Hancock consider the potential of the Swedetown Creek area for use by local schools, who need a location for teaching environmental stewardship. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)"What does it say to your children? What does is say to your teachers? What does it say to all the non-profits who are working to improve the quality of life of this community?" McDonald asked. "You have a tough job to convince me you're doing the right thing by selling this property."
Hancock Mayor Barry Givens commended the Copper Country Audubon Club for their resolution supporting protection of the Swedetown Creek River mouth riparian area, a high quality habitat for migratory birds, and making up to $1000 -- plus volunteer time -- available for improving public access at the site if certain conditions are met.***
"We have to listen to what the people have said," Givens said.
He suggested City Manager Glenn Anderson might do some research on future recreational uses for Government Lot 5.
Councilman Tom Gemignani referred to the new information presented about the 1941 deed.
"I feel compelled to hold to that agreement," he said.
Councilman James Hainault mentioned the recent Recreation Committee minutes listing several problems and expenses for the City to maintain park areas such as Hancock Beach and the Campground.
"I would be reluctant for us to take on another recreational site when we have several recreational sites in the city that need resources to maintain and upgrade them," Hainault said.
Councilman Bill Laitila said he learned a great deal from the presentations at this meeting, especially from Pat Toczydlowski's comments.
No vote was taken on the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to sell one 20-foot-wide parcel (parcel C) and one 100-foot-wide parcel (parcel B), thus leaving a larger buffer of recreational land near Swedetown Creek and a reduced area for the proposed residential land sale near the mouth of the Creek on Portage Lake.
Instead of a vote, the Council decided to direct City Manager Glenn Anderson to do an analysis on the property and to research how to protect the entire parcel for public use.
Anderson said the Council needs to know "what it would take to put any land into park designation."
He noted land to be designated for a park could be the whole area of Government Lot 5 that has been considered for sale or it could be a part of it.
"That's yet to be determined," Anderson said. "We're seeking advice from our attorney because we haven't put land into a park in many years."
The Hancock City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. this Wednesday, Oct. 17, in the Council Chambers of Hancock City Hall. The agenda includes mention of of an opinion on City Park Land Description (Government Lot 5).
A work session at 6:30 p.m. will precede the meeting. A public hearing on Proposed Ordinance #268, concerning a proposed low-income multiple-family dwelling project, will follow the work session before the regular meeting. All three meetings are open to the public.
* See our Sept. 17, 2007, article, "Planning Commission recommends larger buffer for Swedetown Creek."
** Pat Coleman also presented this access management plan at the July 23 Hancock City Planning Commission meeting.
*** See "Audubon Club passes resolution on Swedetown Creek habitat protection."
No comments:
Post a Comment