Elmwood Township prevailed in court against former township Supervisor Jack Kelly Monday.
Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Charles Hamlyn ruled in favor of the township and decided there was no legal basis for Kelly’s allegation that the township board violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA) at their Feb. 12 regular meeting, resolving the case without a trial.
At this meeting, the board went into closed session to consider a memo from township attorney Bryan Graham. When they returned to open session, they rescinded a December motion directing the planning commission to remove short-term rentals (STRs) from Greilickville neighborhoods “using an overlay district or amendment to the zoning ordinances.”
“The cause is right,” Kelly said. “The township circumvented the (OMA) which supports government openness and transparency.”
Hamlyn considered evidence by both parties before granting the township’s motion for summary disposition. This means the township, which was represented by attorney Graham, successfully argued that the facts were not in dispute and that the law clearly shows there was no violation. Kelly filed his complaint May 10 and represented himself in court during the proceedings.
Kelly served as Elmwood Township supervisor from 2008 to 2016. He’s now a seasonal resident and vocal opponent of STRs. From 2019 to 2021, Kelly was secretary for Save Our Neighborhoods in Elmwood, an organization that petitioned against rentals.
Kelly renewed his efforts against STRs late last year, and the township board granted him the opportunity to present on the issue at length at their Dec. 11 regular meeting. Kelly claimed the township board passed a motion to remove STRs from Greilickville neighborhoods in 2021, and “for a variety of reasons … it just fell by the wayside.”
After Kelly’s presentation, the board voted 4-3 to direct the planning commission to remove STRs from Greilickville neighborhoods. Current township Supervisor Jeff Shaw voted “no,” saying that a nonconforming use in the township’s zoning ordinances could have unintended consequences. The board rescinded the motion two months later after a closed session discussion with their attorneys. Kelly argued that “(not) knowing what was going to be discussed in closed session that evening substantially impaired the rights of the public under the OMA … because concerned township residents, including the plaintiff, both saw no need, and also had no opportunity, to make known their concerns to the township board,” according to his complaint.
On behalf of the township, Graham countered that the board fulfilled compliance with the OMA by stating they were going into closed session to consider a written legal opinion, citing a 2022 Michigan Court of Appeals case. Judge Hamlyn agreed with Graham’s argument.
