In a vote that ends a nearly three and a half year state of governmental paralysis, The Elmwood board voted on Thursday December 7, to adopt a major up-date to its zoning ordinance. Amendments to the township's Rural Resort zoning district language were adopted by a vote of 6-1.

A township-wide vote in July 2003 sent shock waves through the then existing Township Board and Planning Commission, as nearly 70% of those voting refused the long awaited zoning ordinance. Even though the then serving board scrambled at first to "educate" township voters, then held extensive public workshops to attempt to come up with standards that would work, the board was never able to come to grips with the basic public demand that new zoning maintain rural character in the township's rambling farm and forest areas. The township poured money into months of planning through the offices of its long time consultant, Gourdie-Fraser, that spanned the tenure of at least two planning commission chairs—but by the time the 2004 election cycle arrived the township had failed to move forward. It could be argued that the zoning ordinance fiasco was a major factor in ending the board tenures of Noel Flohe, John Stanek, and John Gallagher, each staunch supporters and advocates of the failed ordinance.

At the end of 2004 a new Supervisor and two new Trustees joined the board. Although not constituting a majority of votes on the board, the new members had campaigned as land use policy reformers. Along with a nearly complete overhaul of the planning commission in 2005, the engagement of new township attorneys just before the 2004 election, and later the addition of a new planning consultant, the stage seemed to be set for the development of desperately needed up-dates to the township's zoning ordinance.

Those up-dates would be primed by this amendment to the Resort Commercial zoning district, an amendment that was begun under pressure from the application for the Glacier Bay destination resort. It had become only too apparent as the process of evaluating that project went forward that the existing RC-1 ordinance was simply too dysfunctional to allow for a meaningful review of the development. Amendments to the ordinance were immediately undertaken and in the end received approval from the township planning commission, Leelanau County planning staff, and the Leelanau County Planning Commission.

The final obstacle to remedying the township's reliance on contradictory, unclear, unenforceable, and legally dangerous zoning language covering the Rural Resort District turned out to be the majority hold-overs from the Flohe Board. The first time the amendments were presented for adoption on October 9, no votes by hold-overs guaranteed the initiative would fail.

That situation led to a request by the township attorney for a meeting to take place where the board would re-consider the amendments. Concerned with the township's continuing exposure to what he termed a "horrendous" level of legal liability, he asked that the Thursday night special meeting be arranged so that the board could hear further from both the legal side, and from the township's planning consultant. There was still considerable resistance from the board members that had voted against adopting the measures in October, even though planner Val Lasdins and attorney Young went to great lengths to explain how planning and zoning worked in Michigan. The officials seemed unable or unwilling to grasp basic concepts relating to master planning and statutorily mandated policy formulation procedures. There was a consistent desire on the part of these officials to question required methods and to seek avenues that would allow them to act arbitrarily and to allow legislation that would benefit particular applicants, personal social theories, or allow land uses that would not otherwise be legitimately considered.

In the end, the board seemed to responded to attorney Young's description of the possible levels to which a worse case scenario legal action stemming from deficiencies in the current standards might grow. Young described a possible award of damages that would empty the township's general fund, and cause a tax on township citizens to be levied to collect more.

Finally, Treasurer Deborah Street, Trustee Jim O'Rourke, and Trustee Jeff Howell changed their October 9 votes without comment (Clerk Connie Preston was absent at the meeting of October 9) and joined the "ayes" of Supervisor Derith Smith, and Trustee Paul Walter. Trustee Terry Lautner voted "nay".

Elmwood residents are finally beginning to see the actions on the part of their local government that will slowly pull their township out of the legal limbo to which their flawed and out-dated zoning standards have sentenced them. Discrepancies, shortcomings, and ambiguities—not to mention disconnects with our great master plan—have caused the basis for arduous and expensive litigation over the past five or six years. Perhaps as our complete and new from the ground up zoning ordinance takes its final form residents have reason to expect that reasonable, enforceable zoning standards that reflect community desires are on the way, and the flow of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal settlements and legal advice will come to an end.

We only need hope that the majority on the board can see and understand those standards for what they are—the rules and codes that accurately reflect the desires of the community.

~ Courtesy of Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth