STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MARQUETTE

ELAYNE SHELTON,

Plaintiff,

File No. 05-043172-CZ

v Hon. John R. Weber

POWELL TOWNSHIP,

Defendant,

Kevin Wm. Koch (P29640) Michael G. Summers (P27241)

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

P.O. Box 31 122 West Bluff Street

Negaunee, MI 49866 Marquette, MI 49855

(906) 475-9948 (906) 225-1000

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Now Comes Plaintiff and states her Motion as follows:

1. That the Powell Township Planning Commission is scheduled to reconsider a Conditional Use Permit for the Lighthouse III, Inc. project for a 12 unit condominium on September 5, 2006.

2. That a portion of the property for the condominium proposal was rezoned by the Powell Township Board’s vote on August 15, 2006.

3. That such rezoning was premised on a Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) interpretation of what was supposed to be the Township zoning map.

4. That the map used by the ZBA for its interpretation of where zoning district boundaries for the Lake Shore/River district should be, in the area here in issue, was not the official Township zoning map.

5. That the Township Planning Commission was advised that there was a more reliable map setting forth the original and accurate zoning district boundaries for its use in the rezoning hearing, but it persisted in using the wrong map.

6. That there is a significant difference in the size and extent of the LS/R zoning district depicted by the zoning maps referred to above such that the decisions of both the ZBA in interpreting the zoning map, and the Planning Commission and Township Board in approving the rezoning, are significantly flawed by their reliance on the wrong township zoning map

7. That Plaintiff, and similarly situated landowners in the area here in issue, stand to suffer irreparable harm with the approval of the re-submitted Conditional Use Permit which would allow for the further sale of smaller lots in the area, pursuant to the rezoning approval.

8. That Plaintiff, and similarly situated landowners in the area here in issue, stand to suffer the same irreparable harm of further sales of smaller lots in the condominium proposal, because the original zoning scheme in that area precluded the level of land use contemplated by the condominium proposal, a fact upon which plaintiff relied in purchasing her own contiguous parcel of property.

9. That Defendant’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 1106(E), requires that the zoning administrator stay all proceedings related to a matter on appeal unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property.

10. That as of the writing of this Motion, no decision had been made by the township to stay the Planning Commission’s Conditional Use Permit consideration on September 5.

11. That this Motion is supported by the attached Affidavits of Alan K. Pierce and Jerry Grenman.

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction either

adjourning the Planning Commission’s re-consideration of the Conditional Use Permit, or staying any further proceedings or actions based upon an approval by the Planning Commission of the Conditional Use Permit until this Court can rule on the merits of the Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: August 31, 2006

___________________________

Kevin Wm. Koch, P.C.