The Leighton Township Board has received notice from Green Lake area residents Jay and Shannon Steinebach they have filed a formal pre-suit demand for resolution, along with a draft verified complaint.
The pre-suit demand is for resolution of claims Steinebach intends to file in Allegan County Circuit Court. He insists the Township Board “adopted and enforced Ordinance No. 2025-12-11-RV without complying with any of the mandatory procedures of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3201(4) and 125.3301.”
Steinebach added, “We remain available to discuss a mutually agreeable resolution within the 14-day period outlined in the demand letter.”
Steinebach claimed the ordinance, which regulates camping facilities and RVs on properties, was adopted improperly under “Unfinished Business” item on the agenda with no Planning Commission recommendation and no public hearing, while a different zoning amendment on the same agenda received the full MZEA process.
It also is his contention that the ordinance has been enforced selectively against him and his wife and thus they have experienced retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, including April 10 cutoff of all communication and being silenced during public comment at the Township Board meeting April 16 while other residents were permitted to speak freely.
“We also encountered violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act and a clear pattern of bad-faith handling of our FOIA requests — most recently evidenced by the township’s failure to issue the required written determination on our fee-waiver appeal after the board’s verbal denial on April 16.”
Steinebach and his wife maintain that the ordinance adoption has caused them loss of use and enjoyment of their property, emotional distress, anxiety, and substantial time and expense.
The Steinbachs insist the ordinance was suddenly adopted by unanimous roll-call vote without Planning Commission recommendation, public hearing, or the procedural steps required for zoning ordinances. By contrast, a separate zoning amendment for Paris Ridge Phase VII on the same agenda that night was approved.
The Steinbachs also maintain the ordinance also contains drafting irregularities that support their claim that it was carelessly assembled and arbitrarily enforced.handed manner to similarly situated property owners. As confirmed in the PCI email Plaintiffs say their property was the only property cited or pursued under the ordinance.
