A Calhoun County ruling is expected to take into account a key ruling next week in a trial over Ford Motor Co. ‘s proposed battery plant. to Marshall.
Visiting Judge William Marietti said Wednesday he expects a ruling on a move for an abstract trial of the case as soon as next week. His comments came here at a hearing on a movement between the defendants, the City of Marshall and Marshall Area Economic Development. Alliance, to remove an amended petition filed through the Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite, which opposes the project.
Marietti chose to delay the resolution on the movement to end the amended movement because it could become moot through his next resolution on abstract resolution.
The petitioners of the lawsuit are an electoral referendum for a local vote on zoning adjustments that allowed the allocation of the battery factory to go ahead.
The effort aims to prevent BlueOval Battery Park, Ford’s $3. 5 billion battery allocation in Marshall.
Last month, Marietti rejected an attempt to block adjustments to zoning ordinances similar to the allocation that passed through the Marshall City Council in May, rejecting a request for an initial injunction or an indefinite pause in zoning adjustments. He ruled that municipal and state legislation likely blocked the group’s efforts to prevent adjustments through the referendum. The replaced ordinance included a cash allocation he received from the referendum, Marietti determined.
In May, the Marshall City Council approved the rezoning of 741 acres of the township to commercial status. At the same time, the Council has allocated $40,000 for site plan review and approximately $250,000 for construction inspection.
Following this decision, the Marshall-No Megasite Committee collected 810 signatures from citizens for a referendum petition to put zoning replacement to a local vote. But the city clerk decided that the group’s registration was invalid, raising the allocation of cash included in the order. Had the signatures been certified, the rezoning designation would have been suspended pending the local vote.
That’s what led the conflicting parties to take legal action and seek a judgment to uphold the rezoning. The organization argued that by passing the ordinance, the local government imposed unconstitutional restrictions on residents’ rights.
jgrzelewski@detroitnews. com
Editor Beth LeBlanc contributed.
We offer a great rate on virtual subscriptions. Click here.