More and more Leelanau properties are being preserved through conservation agreements. This Record-Eagle story tells how four properties in the County are being preserved through agreements with the Leelanau Conservancy. Just think what could be accomplished if we had a county-wide program like the one voted down last year!
There's a good article in New York Times today by Keith Schneider of Michigan Land Use Institute about the revival of the State Theater in downtown Traverse City, as well as about other theaters in other communities also being restored to their former glory. It's something for our community to be proud of.
A SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) suit by local behemoth Meijer against an Acme public official has been slapped down by a mediation panel . Meijer hoped to intimidate Acme Treasurer William Boltres into dropping his opposition to their application to build a giant store on M-72 in Acme by filing a SLAPP suit against him. SLAPP suits are an inexpensive way for big players like Meijers to try to stifle public opposition to a project they want to jam through. Private citizens or public officials who oppose the project are hit with lawsuits that can cost many thousands of dollars to defend. Often, rather than take a chance on bankruptcy, the opponents fold. It's a pattern of behavior that Meijer has engaged in more than 30 cases in 4 states. On this occasion, Traverse City attorney Grant Parsons stepped in to help Boltres defend himself, and Meijer has lost the first round. Not surprisingly, they intend to contest the panel's recommendation, according to this article in the Record-Eagle .
It's convenient to shop at Meijers, no doubt. But does a store that tries to bully local governments in this way really deserve our patronage?
Neighbors in Elmwood Township are mobilizing to try to stop a giant electric sub-station slated for construction next door to their homes. Property owners in Elmwood Township have petitioned the Elmwood Township Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret language in its zoning ordinance as it applies to the provision of "essential services" in response to construction that began on a rural site in the township earlier in November. Wolverine Power Cooperative plans to build a massive super-sized electric sub-station on the site, but as construction began the public in Elmwood was unaware that the utility was building in the township. Wolverine Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit, member-owned generation and transmission electric cooperative based in Cadillac, Michigan and provides wholesale electricity to Cherryland Electric Cooperative and four other electricity co-ops in Michigan.
Adjacent property owners Mason and Lisa Argue filed one of the petitions. They had no knowledge of the proposal to build a massive electric "Super Sub-station" next to their property before construction equipment moved onto the site and started work. Without their knowledge, approval for the project had been granted as early as last July through the signature of a single Elmwood employee without the benefit of review by any township board or commission and without public notice or public hearing.
"Wolverine found a way to get this in through the back door", observed Mason Argue in regard to the approval process as it was addressed by the Township. "Anyone down there (township hall) who looked at the news papers knew there had been a huge storm over this thing across the highway in Garfield Township last spring. They should have known this thing was big and ugly and dangerous, and they should have let us know it was being planned."
Based on statements made by Elmwood officials to date, it is difficult to determine which offices had complete information on the project, or how the determination was made that Wolverine was clear to proceed. Once construction equipment was on the property and the phones began to ring at the Township Hall the board quickly voted to authorize its attorney to make a determination as to whether a complete review as required had been carried out. Abstaining from the vote was Trustee Terry Lautner.
In addition to serving as Trustee on the Elmwood Township Board, Lautner holds a seat on the Cherryland Electric Co-op Board (an elected position), and has held a seat on the Wolverine Board in the past. The 10 acre lot where the 750 foot long and 80 foot tall super substation has been proposed is owned by Lautner and is being purchased by Wolverine. Lautner spoke on behalf of the project before excusing himself from voting on the matter. He indicated that the project was one he'd been working to see to completion over a period of years. Elmwood Zoning Administrator Don Witkoski retired and left the area shortly after signing off on the project.
Wolverine abandoned a process it had undertaken to locate the station a short distance away in Garfield Township earlier in the year. The utility had argued that its then proposed location was the best possible site for the facility. Facing stiff public resistance Wolverine let the matter drop. Explaining its decision to relocate the project in Elmwood a Wolverine spokesman indicated that the choice had been made in light of their understanding that no public hearing would be required in Elmwood.
"Before this all happened I would have said that it was a good thing to have someone from the Township Board sit on the Electric co-op board", said Argue. "I would have thought an arrangement like that would have given the public a better picture as to how infrastructure was going to be developed in our community. But I guess you have to be careful. If you have people that want to do things in secret they'll do as they please whether they've been elected to uphold the public trust or not".
The question of interpretation raised by the neighbors will likely be taken up by the Elmwood Zoning Board of Appeals at its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 19 at the township hall.
Photo by tilaneseven. Used under a Creative Commons license thru http://flickr.com/photos/tilaneseven/255407796/
The Leelanau County Board of Commissioners will be considering whether or not they may have violated the state Open Meetings Act when they elected to go into closed session at several of their meetings last year, according to this Leelanau Enterprise story. The possible violations were pointed out by Alan Campbell, publisher of the Enterprise.
Black Star Farms, which operates a winery and inn just south of Suttons Bay, is expanding their operations. In addition to a second winery now underway on Old Mission peninsula, Black Star is in the process of building out a tasting room at Grand Traverse Commons on the grounds of the old State Hospital. The facility will highlight Black Star's brandies and dessert wines.
Troubles continue to mount for the Bay View development in Suttons Bay, according to Leelanau Enterprise article. The project's developer is now being sued for various misrepresentations made to buyers and potential buyers, in addition to the numerous construction liens already files against the project.
County administrator David Gill, himself a former police officer and Fife Lake resident, has hired another former police officer and Fife Lake resident to replace former Building Inspection Department head Robert VanDyke, according to this Enterprise article. VanDyke was fired on June 4, two days after he rescinded occupancy permits for every unit at the troubled BayView condominium development in the Village of Suttons Bay because of potential health and safety concerns. One day later, Gill took control of the department and reversed VanDyke's decision.
A beach improvement project in Empire costing more than $400K is underway in Empire. The project includes new roads, sidewalks, buried utility lines, playground equipment, bathroom facilities, and a sand retention wall which some complain blocks the view of the Lake. According to tv7-4.com, local resident Alice Diggins says "I like the old prestige beach when there wasn't too many people. But times change [...] It's different and you have to adjust to change but you don't always have to like it." We agree.
The cherry crop is ripening early this year -- so early in fact that the Cherry Festival scheduled for July 7-14 will be able to use local fruit this year, according to this article in the Freep. One more example of the long-term trend of the cherry harvest coming earlier and earlier?
The first sweets should be ready to eat by the end of the week.
This is fun. Someone wrote to Chowhound.com asking where to eat in Traverse City, and generated a bunch of recommendations and warnings. Not mentioned -- the great sandwiches at Mary's Kitchen Port and Folgarelli's.
George Weeks, dean of Michigan political writers, has a column this week on the Great Lakes and their relation to the developing world-wide water crisis.
Turtles, once plentiful in and near Northern Michigan waters, are on the decline, according to a recent scientific study. Not surprisingly, among the main causes are sprawl and development, which destroy the reptiles' habitat.
A county commissioner in neighboring Grand Traverse county has sued her colleagues on the board, claiming that they tried to block her from taping their meetings, according to this article from MLive.
Christine Maxbauer is seeking more openness and accountability in the way in which local government is being conducted--an important and worthy goal that deserves to be pursued throughout our region.
Leelanau's tourist-oriented business, especially the smaller ones that make up an important part of the local economy, are not effectively represented by existing Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs), says says this article in the TC Business News.
Rick Coates has been working for the past several years to organize an alternative the CVBs that are dominated by large players like the Homestead (and which actually exclude smaller players from participating). The Leelanau Tourism Initiative is attempting to bring together the smaller inns, restaurants, galleries, and wineries that should make the County even more of a draw than it is today. By working together to publicize Leelanau County as a destination, they hope to infuse tourist dollars into the pockets of local business owners and citizens. A worthy goal, and deserving of public support, in our opinion.
As a retired Ranger at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, I’m often asked about Park issues. Recently, the subject has been the Park’s General Management Plan, which is now being revised. (The Park Service is requesting public comments on this by May 14; see www.nps.gov/slbe/parkmgmt/gmphome.htm for details.)
The following is offered for those who might be interested in one former Ranger’s thoughts on the three alternatives that have been offered by the Park Service:
Alternative A (the “Conservation of Natural Resources” Option):
• This alternative includes substantial roadless wilderness areas, much like the way the Park has been managed for many years. As such, it appears to be the best plan for protecting the National Lakeshore and keeping it a great place to enjoy the natural world. (All wilderness areas are fully accessible by non-mechanized means.)
• It’s often noted that one roadway creates noise that impacts a vast area off to its sides. Establishing limits on new roads will help preserve our remaining quiet areas.
• Some have said that wilderness protection is not needed, since “Experience Nature” zoning in the Park is similarly protective. However, wilderness designation provides a legislative mandate to preserve these areas, regardless of political climates, future management personalities, etc.. Establishing designated wilderness represents a commitment for future generations.
• Congratulations to the Park planners for proposing the Sleeping Bear Plateau (not including the Dune Climb area) for wilderness designation! Truly the most significant and fragile feature in the Park, this will ensure its proper protection. This is a major improvement over past plans.
• One aspect of Alternative A that would be unfortunate is the proposed abandonment of the Benzie Corridor portion of the Park. This hill-top route is an extraordinary resource for observing the surrounding glacial landforms and scenery (which have been identified as "fundamental values" of the Park). Once abandoned and developed, it will surely never be available to the public again. As northern Michigan continues to be populated, such places will become increasingly precious. The corridor would make a fantastic route for a hiking trail, and possibly a bike trail. (The Park Service welcomes you to pick & choose features from the various alternatives, so you can make note of portions such as this one if you agree that it is undesirable.)
• There are sound reasons to abandon Tiesma Road (which is an old private road; not a county road), as proposed. Lake Michigan Road and Peterson Road will continue to provide motorized beach access in that area. Workers who monitor the endangered Piping Plovers in the area have noted that Tiesma Road is a bad area for people driving back and letting their dogs off-leash, endangering the nesting birds.
Alternative B (the “Recreational Opportunities” Option):
• This alternative, which would provide for the most development of recreational facilities throughout the Park, would give up much of what is special about this, the only National Park area in lower Michigan—Its opportunities for solitude, exploration and nature study in a relatively wild, pristine environment.
• While some commercial interests advocate developing the Park intensively in order to attract many more visitors, most folks seem to feel that this would ruin the charm of the area.
• A new group camping area is proposed for development adjacent to DH Day Campground, to replace the existing group camp. This would require the sacrifice of a considerable amount of presently unimpacted forest habitat. Although the present group camp may not be especially attractive, during my years working there I was frequently impressed by how many folks like the location. If the Park Service can make an investment to provide a more attractive environment, why not do a little well-designed landscaping (planting of native trees, etc.) around the present group camp (It is an old farm field, after all), rather than destroy the forest in a new area?
• “If you build it, they will come.” The Crystal River, a very fragile stream environment which is already threatened by over-use, is slated under this proposal to have its access upgraded. The Crystal’s charm is in its quietude, naturalness, and wildlife. All those things will be degraded by heavier use. We don’t need another Platte River. What we do need is to be looking into ways to control use of the Crystal from exceeding its carrying capacity. An upgrade to better protect the put-in environment would be great; one to accommodate more people during peak times will cause problems.
• The Crystal River access is also proposed to be moved downstream, below the dam. This would shorten an already short canoe trip. Going around the dam would be no problem if the portage were properly designed, as it could be. Most folks enjoy this sort of thing.
Alternative C (the “Concentrated Use” Option):
• This alternative is described as concentrating visitor use in selected areas, while facilitating more natural conditions in the rest of the Lakeshore. However, it actually appears that Alternative C would facilitate a significant increase in visitor use as well. This is unfortunate, because the description reads somewhat like the “Mama Bear” alternative. Many folks may choose it because it sounds like it's “not too hot” (developed) and “not too cold” (over-protected). Actually, it is much “hotter” than the park we now know and love—which many find to be “just right”.
• There is a large reduction in wilderness from the area that has been managed that way for many years.
• The large “high-use” and “recreation” zones adjoining the Sleeping Bear Dunes area would inevitably result in greater spill-over of environmental impact onto the dunes—the ultimate “fragile environment”.
• Much of the proposed high-use zone near the mouth of the Platte River is already being used--by endangered Piping Plovers, as nesting grounds; and it is habitat for endangered pitcher’s thistle plants.
• “Improved facilities” at DH Day Campground: I wish I had a petoskey stone for every time someone told me, “Never change DH Day!” The people who want paved roads and pull-through sites have many of them at Platte River Campground. “Leave our nice rustic campground just as it is.”
~ Tom Van Zoeren
Burdickville
Cherry blossom time now comes 7-8 days earlier than it did 30 years ago, according to this article in the Enterprise. While Jim Nugent, former director of the Northwest Michigan Horticultural Research Center, is reluctant to attribute the trend to global warming, the change is certainly consistent with that theory.
Another interesting fact from the same article: even within the relatively small area of Leelanau County, the blossom does not come all at once, but rather moves slowly northward from the southernmost edge of the county to the Northport area over 7-10 days.
We've had some critical things to say about the Leelanau Enterprise in the past. I'm sure we'll find things to criticize there in the future as well. But the recent upgrade to the Enterprise's website is very nicely done.
In addition to a cleaner, more readable look, the site now has useful internal links to its own articles and content, including (my favorite) links to stories from the paper's archives at the end of many articles. Kudos to Enterprise publisher Alan Campbell, who had the courage and vision to update a Leelanau institution, and to Andy McFarlane's Leelanau.com, who did the design.
The National Park Service is midway through a planning process that will determine how Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore gets used in the future. A previous effort along the same lines was derailed when a local advocacy group, Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore, enlisted the support of powerful local and state politicians to argue for more recreational and motorized access to the park, according to this Record-Eagle article. Others feel equally strongly that the park should be preserved as wilderness as much as possible, but have not succeeded in attracting the attention that Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore has.
The complete newsletter where the Park Service outlines the GMP issues and alternatives is available at www.nps.gov/slbe. There you’ll also find background information, a link to submit your thoughts and comments, and a schedule of public meetings to discuss the issues.
A local group, Leelanau Horse Rescue, is helping to take the lead in the rescue of 69 horses found abandoned on a farm near Grass Lake. The animals appear to have been left to fend for themselves all winter, and several are near starvation. Local farmers have contributed hay, the chief need at this point, but funds are being collected by LHR to provide for medical and other expenses, according to this article.
Lake Leelanau resident and longtime Pathfinder School teacher Duncan Sprattmoran has been selected by Michigan Writers Inc to have a chapbook of his poetry published, according to this story in the Record-Eagle.
Judges praised Sprattmoran's work, along with that of Bellaire resident Todd Mercer. Their books may be ordered for $10 each, plus shipping and handling, through www.michwriters.org
. Both writers will read selections from their books at the Traverse Area District Library on April 26 at 7 p.m
According to this Leelanau Enterprise story, the massive Bayview development in Suttons Bay owes over $400K in taxes. Who remembers the grandiose promises that were made about how this development would benefit Suttons Bay and Leelanau County?
An interesting footnote to the recent recall of Bingham Township Supervisor Robert Foster-- the biggest contributor to Foster's failed campaign to retain his post was the Leelanau Republican Party, according to this article in the Enterprise.
Researching this story, we find that Dan Scripp's blog was on it long before we were. Check it out here.
Another developer of a big Leelanau County project is in trouble. Auburn Hills developer Dominic Moceri in default on a $9.6 million loan for his Le Bear Resort in Glen Arbor and is negotiating with lenders to find a way out of his difficulties.
According to this article, Moceri's troubles stem in part from a contentious divorce. Le Bear Resort is a $40 million lakeshore luxury condominium community on Lake Street in Glen Arbor.
Bingham Township Supervisor Robert Foster has been ousted in a recall election by a vote of 506-360, according to this Record-Eagle article.
Foster had come under criticism for verbally abusing other township officials and by unilaterally acting to groom a township beach without the necessary permissions.
The mammoth BayView development in Suttons Bay is plagued with problems, including accusations of shoddy workmanship and unpaid contractors.
The project, unprecedented in its scope, would add 500 new homes to Suttons Bay. But according to this Leelanau Enterprise piece, residents have complained about the quality of the construction, while local contractors have gone unpaid and have filed liens with the county. One woman who paid over $700,000 (that's right, seven hundred thousand dollars) for her condo recently won an award reimbursing her for that amount for defects in its construction. And local contractors, including Northport Nursery and Leelanau Redi-Mix have claimed that they are owed thousands of dollars by the downstate developer of the project.
Governor Jennifer Granholm has disappointed farmland preservation advocates by vetoing a bill that would have changed the way farmland is valued for tax purposes.
Michigan is currently the only state in the nation that assesses farmland on the basis of its potential development value, rather than its agricultural use value, according to this Record-Eagle article. Granholm is of course responding to Michigan's horrendous budget problems--when you're fighting deficits as big as ours, you have to worry about any measure that will diminish tax revenues--but, like the defeat of the purchase of development rights measure in Leelanau last fall, it's gonna hurt the effort to preserve agriculture in Leelanau and elsewhere.
A follow-up on the Record-Eagle's blistering editorial on the three Elmwood Township defamers Don Barrow, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek...
It occurs to us that perhaps the reason Barrows, Flohe and Stanek still have not written the letters of apology that the jury required of them is that they don't know how to begin. In that spirit, we thought we would reprint a letter suggested some time ago by an Empire resident:
"Dear Ms. Smith: I truly am sorry for the flaws in my human condition that led me to act in such a vile and intimidating way towards you. As we are all human, this has been a real learning curve for me. From here on out, I will treat people with respect and fairness. If I feel the urge to harass people, namely women, I will seek professional help in order to better understand and change my unacceptable behavior. I am so, so sorry for all the unnecessary problems I have caused. If I would have apologized from the start it may have avoided all this nasty court business. Sincerely ..."
~ Steve
Jeff Howell, Elmwood Township Trustee and member of the Elmwood Planning Commission, informed board members and residents at the Township's regular board meeting held Tuesday January 9, that the township's long awaited zoning overhaul could be expected to be completed in February. Howell further detailed a process that would include a formal legal review to be accomplished by Elmwood's attorney leading to a public hearing on the legislation to take place in March.
Elmwood voters rejected a zoning ordinance adopted by the township in
2003 by an overwhelming margin in a referendum vote. Since then efforts to bring an acceptable ordinance to the public has been accompanied by a major re-shuffle of Township Board members by voters in 2004, and a major shake-up of Planning Commission members by the newly elected Supervisor. The campaign against the defeated ordinance centered on the propriety of the densities to be allowed in the rural zoning district.
While the planning commission has worked since April 2006 with its consultant, LSL Associates, to re-work previously written ordinance language, commission Chair Jack Kelly has admitted that the commission has yet to open discussion concerning basic residential densities and development options.
Elmwood's exposure to damages resulting from potential legal challenges stemming from its outmoded and conflict ridden zoning ordinance has been characterized in the past by the township attorney as "horrendous".
The planning commission has finished work on up-dating standards governing development in the township's Rural Resort zoning district, and has completed work on defining an overlay district that would govern the re-use of waterfront buildings in Greilickville.
A blistering editorial in the Record-Eagle on Wednesday lambasted Elmwood township residents Don Barrows, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek for their refusal to honor a jury's verdict that they apologize for their anonymous smear of township supervisor Deri Smith.
Barrows, Flohe, and Stanek were convicted last November of sending a misspelled, anonymous mailing smearing Smith in 2004. Smith was elected to the supervisor position in Elmwood in 2004 as part of an effort to reform the township's ingrown and dysfunctional government, the same election in which Flohe and Stanek were swept from office. Barrows, Flohe, and Stanek were active in the 2006 effort to recall Smith, as were several of their close allies who remain on the Elmwood board.
The Record-Eagle editorial tells it like it is, characterizing the three defamers as "poster boys for the type of secretive, vindictive, back-room government that infests the Grand Traverse region, particularly in local townships." It asks that "the Larry, Moe and Curly of political espionage" remove themselves from future politics in Elmwood township, a position we heartily endorse.
~ Steve
Leelanau vintners are proposing a Leelanau Tourist Trail which could bring millions of dollars in business to the county each year. The CraftWORKS Leelanau initiative would link together wineries, shops, galleries, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, farm markets and other local attractions to attract visitors to Leelanau year round.
Leelanau businesses must learn that their competition is not the restaurant or inn down the road, but rather Door County in Wisconsin or the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York, according to this article in the Traverse City Business News. Rick Coates, a spokesman for the vintner group points out that “We don’t need a water park, we don’t need a resort, we don’t need chain hotels.” Rather, it's the unique natural beauty and local character of the region that will bring visitors--and their business.
Elmwood Township's Don Barrows, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek are listed among the region's champion bad actors in the Record-Eagle's annual roundup of the news. The three were convicted in November of smearing Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith in an anonymous mailing.
The Record-Eagle opinion piece includes a roster of those who made our region worse, not better. Others include disgraced former township officials Jan Gee and Joe Bartko of East Bay, as well as State Senator Jason Allen.
Elmwood township will soon be getting equipment to tape and broadcast its meetings, following the lead of volunteer (and, ahem, Leelanau Post publisher) Pei-shan Van Zoeren.
The efforts to record and make the meetings public were praised by the Record-Eagle in their weekly Cheers and Jeers section. The local paper also ran an informative story on the taping earlier in the week.
Former judge of the Leelanau Probate Court Elizabeth Weaver is fighting a lonely battle for openness on the the Michigan Supreme Court.
Weaver is locked in a bitter dispute with her four fellow Republicans on the court over whether or not she will be allowed to say why she believes her fellow justices should have disqualified themselves in a recent case, according to this column by George Weeks in the Record-Eagle.
We tend to agree with dean of Michigan political columnists and Glen Arbor resident Weeks that "anyone advocating the bright light of public scrutiny is to be applauded."
A vision for Elmwood Township's rural AO-1 District was presented Tuesday night by the group Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth. The group was represented by Erik Saxon, who introduced a position paper entitled "Development density and development options for the Rural Low Density zoning district in Elmwood: The master plan, community agreement, and the formulation of public policy." You can read the paper here. (Full disclosure: the publisher and editor of the Leelanau Post are also members of ECSG.)
The paper advocates a set of development options for the township's extensive Agricultural Openspace District, which is coming under heavy pressure from local, downstate, and national development interests. The plan aims to minimize large-lot metes and bounds splits which lead to sprawl, instead advocating generous density incentives to encourage developers to cluster housing and preserve open space and agricultural lands. In addition, the paper endorses the Alternative Standard Land Divisions option in the current draft of the zoning ordinance which allows a farmer or other landowner to split off properties of any size for their children or to raise cash.
~ Steve
By a 5-to-1 vote, the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees decided on Thursday that Supervisor Deri Smith will be paid as much as the township's clerk and treasurer, thus bringing to a close a long-running controversy in Elmwood politics.
According to this Record-Eagle story, Smith's pay was raised to $35,750, finally bringing her compensation in line with those of Clerk Connie Preston and Treasurer Debbie Street. Shortly after Smith's election as Supervisor in 2004, the outgoing board voted to cut the incoming supervisor's salary from $33,384 to $28,000. That board's membership included then-Supervisor Noel Flohe and Trustees John Stanek and John Gallagher, as well as Preston, Street, and current trustees Terry Lautner and Jim O'Rourke. Street was the only member of the board to vote against Smith on Thursday.
Flohe and Stanek were later active in an unsuccessful attempt to recall Smith, and both were recently convicted of defaming Smith in an anonymous mailing. Flohe was the only member of the public to speak Thursday night against restoring Smith's salary.
Judge Philip Rodgers of the 13th District Court has overruled the objections of defendants Don Barrows, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek to a jury's ruling that they must apologize to Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith.
A Leelanau County jury ruled on that the defendants had defamed Smith and, in addition to levying damages, required them to issue a written apology to Smith. All three defendants have defied the deadline specified for the apologies. In a recent action, they asked Judge Rodgers to vacate that part of the jury's decision that required them to apologize.
Rodgers's decision is eloquent, not only of Smith's right to the apology ordered by the jury, but also of his deep respect for the law and for the jury system:
"Plaintiff is entitled to judgment reflecting the considered decision of the jury. Indeed, so long as the right to trial by jury exists our juries act as the conscience of our communities. This particular jury listened to a defamation case arising out of a political dispute and ordered the Defendants to apologize and pay damages. Plaintiff has made enforcement of the apology a moot issue -- but the finding and its inclusion in the judgment are fair and accurate. The common sense of a jury should never be overwhelmed by law. If such is the case, then the law should change."
Could there be a clearer contrast, between Rodgers's reverence for the law on the one hand, and the cynicism and arrogance of Barrows, Flohe, and Stanek on the other?
~ Steve
TCTV2 will be broadcasting the 29 November Elmwood Township Board of Trustees special meeting.
The meeting will be broadcast Friday 12/22/2006 at 8:00 PM and 12/30/2006 at 5:00 PM, on TCTV, Channel 2.
If you would like to see the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees in action, here's your chance.
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
In what was seen as a crucial test of the new planning process in Elmwood, the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees voted Thursday night to pass an amendment to its zoning ordinance, 6-1. Trustee Terry Lautner was the lone vote opposing the passage of an amendment defining clear standards for the Resort Commercial (RC-1) District. The so-called Milliken property on M-72 which was recently proposed as the site of a massive water park project (since withdrawn) is zoned RC-1.
The amendment was rejected by the Board in an earlier vote, but reconsidered after the Planning Commission declined to revise its earlier recommendation according to the Board's wishes. Township Attorney Jim Young's energetic insistence that the township's Master Plan could not be arbitrarily ignored seemed to be the crucial argument in turning the Board around Thursday night.
~ Steve Van Zoeren
Update 12/9/06: The Record-Eagle story on the vote is here
The amendment is the first substantial piece of zoning legislation to emerge from newly constituted Elmwood Planning Commission and is seen by many as providing a crucial window onto the reception that can be expected for the new Zoning Ordinance which the Planning Commission is slated to deliver in early 2007.
A Garfield township man has pleaded guilty to making telephone threats to the Record-Eagle's publisher and editors. Alfred VanDyke Jr., 46, used pay phones to telephone a death threat to Record-Eagle publisher Ann Reed and to harass editors Bill Thomas and Mike Tyree. VanDyke was upset about the paper's aggressive reporting on questionable fundraising practices of State Senator Jason Allen, as well as editorials on President George Bush. He described the calls as "a silly prank," according to this Record-Eagle article. We say: Traverse City is lucky to have the courageous and capable people we do at the helm of our area's biggest paper. Let's hope they survive the changes associated with its transfer of ownership.
The Elmwood Township Board of Trustees will meet Thursday, December 7 at 5:30pm at the township hall to reconsider a proposed amendment to the township Zoning Ordinance governing RC-1 (Resort Commercial) properties like the one where a massive water park was recently proposed.
The amendment, crafted by Planning Commission with the assistance of township attorney Jim Young and planning consultant Val Lazdins of LSL Planning, aims to set clear new standards for a district whose current regulations Young says are a "recipe for a lawsuit".
The amendment was rejected once before by the Board but is being reconsidered at Young's urging. The amendment has earned the support of groups like Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth and other advocates for smart growth; it is being opposed by trustees who favor unregulated development in the township.
A good summary of the issues at stake and a list of links can be found here.
Leelanau County residents are tied with those of Benzie for the honor of having the longest life expectancies in the state, a study has shown.
According to this article from the Monroe News, Leelanau and Benzie residents can expect to live 80.2 years, while Wayne County residents can expect only 73.4 years.
We always knew living in Leelanau County is good for you.
A proposed amendment to the Elmwood Township Zoning Ordinance encountered determined resistance at a special meeting of the Elmwood Township Board Wednesday. The meeting was called at the request of township attorney Jim Young in part to reconsider the Board's earlier rejection of a zoning ordinance amendment designed to deal with shortcomings in the township's Resort-Commercial zoning district. Trustee Terry Lautner characterized development standards delineated in the proposed amendment as "insane" and promised to withhold support for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment until standards were substantially altered. The Board voted 6 to 1, with Lautner the lone "nay", to put the reconsideration of the proposed amendment on the agenda of their regular meeting to be held December 11.
The Elmwood Board voted at its regular meeting in October against adopting the new "Rural Resort" zoning district language. The district encompasses property that was the subject last year of an application by Wilderness Development to create a destination water park resort that would have surpassed the Grand Traverse Resort in intensity of use. The zoning amendments were undertaken as a part of the Wilderness application when the deficiencies in the existing Elmwood standards became apparent. The Elmwood Planning Commission in conjunction with its land use planning consultants and attorney Young worked over a period of 10 months to create standards for the district that Young characterized as "backing up your community Master Plan." The provisions underwent scrutiny via public hearing, and were reviewed and endorsed by the Leelanau County Planning Commission. Attorney Young called the current township zoning for the district "a recipe for a lawsuit".
Township attorney Young and planning consultant Val Lasdins will be on hand at the December 11th meeting to offer their professional input on the board's discussion regarding the adoption of the amendment.
The Leelanau Post has a new layout. Gone (for now) is the newspaper-style layout that we borrowed from the Huffington Post and other news-oriented sites on the web. Our new layout shows a more traditional blogging style, with articles arranged chronologically rather than by subject--an arrangement we think will do a better job of showcasing new posts as they arrive. Hope you like it--let us know your opinions.
The three defendants in the Deri Smith defamation case have said they will not apologize, even thought ordered to by a Leelanau County jury.
Although the jury in the Smith case specified that apologies must be made, the defendants Noel Flohe, John Stanek and Noel Flohe all said they had no intention of apologizing. But Record-Eagle reader Char Verschaeve has written an apology letter for them, as follows:
"Dear Ms. Smith: I truly am sorry for the flaws in my human condition that led me to act in such a vile and intimidating way towards you. As we are all human, this has been a real learning curve for me. From here on out, I will treat people with respect and fairness. If I feel the urge to harass people, namely women, I will seek professional help in order to better understand and change my unacceptable behavior. I am so, so sorry for all the unnecessary problems I have caused. If I would have apologized from the start it may have avoided all this nasty court business."
Right onl
The farmland preservation measure in Leelanau County has gone down to defeat.
According to this story, the measure was defeated by a 24 percent margin.
No legal action will be taken against a group that helped organize an unsuccessful recall campaign in Elmwood Township, according to a letter from the Michigan Department of State obtained by the Leelanau Post.
Writing concerning the Elmwood Township Alliance (ETA) the letter says that "the evidence submitted to the Department leaves the distinct impression that ETA [one of the recall groups] was created in a deliberate attempt to evade the disclosure requirements" of the campaign finance act (MCFA) and that its actions "may have violated the spirit of the law." Nevertheless, the writer, Melissa Materman of the Legal and Regulatory Service, concludes that "the disclosure purposes of the [campaign finance law] were largely met" and that no further action will be taken. A fee was assessed for late filing of one of the groups.
At stake were three committees organized to lobby for the recall of Elmwood Supervisor Deri Smith: Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHG), Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials (ECHO), and Elmwood Township Alliance (ETA). Critics, including the Leelanau Post, charged that at least one of the groups was created as a means to hide the names those who financed the campaign.
Contacted for a comment, the complainant, Nancy Doughty of Elmwood, said that she had "gained a new appreciation for grass roots democracy and our state officials." She said that she was satisfied that the late fee was assessed and that the recall organizers were "cautioned that the Department will take appropriate enforcement action if future violations of the MCFA occur."
The Traverse City Record-Eagle, long rumored to be on the block, is to be sold to Community Newspaper Holdings Inc of Birmingham, Alabama.
According to this report CNHI has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire six community newspapers, including the Traverse City Record-Eagle, from Dow Jones & Co Inc for $282.5 million in cash.
It is not known whether the recent campaign against the Record-Eagle by a coalition of local government officials and business men was a factor in the sale.
CNHI owns more than 200 daily, weekly and semi-weekly publications in 20 states. Some editors and reporters at papers acquired by the company have complained of a formulaic approach that have diminished the quality of once-vibrant publications.
Save Leelanau Farmland has created a video that gives a good introduction to the farmland preservation measure on the November ballot. Click here to watch it.
At their regular meeting held Monday, October 9, The Elmwood Board of Trustees voted 4-2 to reject zoning ordinance amendments written to create clearly defined standards or the township's Rural Resort-1 zoning district.
The developers of the Petoskey Pointe project submitted test data that they knew was flawed in support of their application for $4.5 million in tax credits. The project involves several of the same people who were involved in the recently rejected Traverse City parking deck project, including State Senator Jason Allen.
The data purported to show that the project's site was seriously polluted and thus eligible for brownfield tax credits, but as this Record-Eagle article shows, they were later shown to be seriously flawed. Nevertheless, the $4.5 million tax credit was approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Apparently former Elmwood trustee John Stanek made a $2500 offer to settle the defamation lawsuit brought against him by Supervisor Deri Smith, but without admitting any wrongdoing.
At stake is a lawsuit filed by Smith against Stanek, former Elmwood Supervisor Noel Flohe, and Don Barrows. The suit alleges that the three conspired to publish materials alleging misconduct in office by Smith that they knew were false and defamatory. As this Record-Eagle story points out, Stanek and Flohe were behind the recent recall campaign against Smith; both were ousted from their posts in the 2004 election.
Leland township trustee Nick Lederle has strong links to the developer of a controversial project on Lake Leelanau and has acted on his behalf, according to published reports.
Lederle, who serves as the township board's representative on the planning commission was slated to testify at an administrative hearing on behalf of the Provemont Village development on Lake Leelanau, according to this report in the Leelanau Enterprise. In addition, Lederle intervened in a zoning dispute, seeking to force township zoning administrator Robert Hagstrom to act against critics of the Provemont Village's developer. No violations were found by Hagstrom.
Bingham Township Supervisor Robert Foster seems to be digging a deep hole for himself. Foster is in trouble with the Army Corps of Engineers for taking it upon himself to groom the township beach, as well as for bullying former township Clerk Dorothy Petroskey.
As this Record-Eagle editorial says, Foster seems to be a supervisor of a type familiar to residents of other area townships including Elmwood, where Noel Flohe was similarly careless of the laws and of the truth. We agree with the Record-Eagle editorialists: township voters deserve better than this.
An Elmwood township boater's group, United Boaters of Elmwood Township (UBET), is seeking ways to scuttle the township's application for state funds to upgrade its park and marina, according to the Leelanau Enterprise (sorry, article not online). The application, which has received enthusiastic support from both the public and the often-fractious Elmwood Board of Trustees, would enable a major upgrade to the township's waterfront park and the adjoining marina.
UBET is concerned that accepting the grant from the state would force the Elmwood marina to follow state guidelines for fees collection, slips allocation, and other practices. The group, formerly known as ABET (Angry Boaters of Elmwood Township), was organized earlier this year to resist attempts to reform the troubled marina's finances and operations.
Traverse City's major newspaper, the Record-Eagle, may be put on the market by its parent company, Dow Jones & Co.
The Record-Eagle is one of six community papers that Dow Jones is thinking of selling, according to this article in the Free Press. If the sale comes to pass, it will be another instance of a large company selling off local newspapers that are both profitable and consistent award-winners.
Of course, the efforts by a local consortium of old boys to muzzle the paper can't help either.
A local group led by former Grand Traverse County Administrator K. Ross Childs has contacted the parent company of the Record-Eagle, hoping to force changes in the paper's "attitude." Childs and his group are upset about the Record-Eagle's aggressive reporting of a number of local controversies.
According to this article in the Traverse City Business News, Childs wants the Record-Eagle's parent company to force changes at the paper, and says: “What happens next depends on their response. We laid out four scenarios. The first would be a change in their reporting method—and a change in the attitude of the existing people or change of the people. Then there are alternatives ‘b, c, and d,’ which we really don’t want to talk about.”
Childs was a prominent supporter of the recently failed parking deck proposal in Traverse City. The Record-Eagle broke the story of State Senator Jason Allen's involvement in steering the deck contract to a political supporter.
See our editorial on the subject of Childs' campaign here.
The proposed parking deck in Traverse City was voted down, and its supporters got ugly at a meeting the other night.
As this Record-Eagle article describes, supporters of the failed parking deck in Traverse City vented their anger on a Record-Eagle reporter the other night. The Record-Eagle crime? Reporting on the unsavory politics as usual that surrounded the award of the deck project. The good old boys who lined up behind this project think that was outrageous. They think they should be allowed to do what they want, when they want it.
In a telephone conversation today, Bill White, attorney and spokesman for Wilderness Development, gave assurances that Elmwood Township would be paid for expenses it incurred in its review of applications made for the giant water park. "I think a check will be cut this week," White said in response to questions asked by The Post in regard to escrow account shortfalls reported by Elmwood Township officials. "I know 'The check is in the mail' is a classic," said White, "But it was always our intention to honor these invoices."
"Thats great." was Elmwood Clerk Connie Preston's response to news of White's statement.
Township officials grew concerned when the escrow account established to pay for analysis of the Glacier Bay application, and funded by the applicants, was found to be $22,323.74 in arrears at the time review of the project was terminated early in May.
Although several notices for payment had been forwarded to White, Elmwood officials had not spoken with him directly regarding the matter.
Under terms set forth by the township and agreed to by Michael Best and Friedrich, the escrow account balance was to be maintained at all times at a minimum of $10,000. Records obtained from Elmwood Clerk Connie Preston indicate that the account balance dipped as low as -$18,508.90 in the months prior to the withdrawal of the Wilderness Development applications. On at least one occasion during the planning commission review process work was stopped on Township Attorney Jim Young's advice that the escrow account was underfunded.
Clerk Preston acknowledged that monitoring of the status of the account was "Up to me." and that unless other township officials were to look expressly for the information, the status of the account would not have been accessible in one statement. Preston had stated previously that "This is the first account of this kind that we've set up…The next time around we'll ask for more money to be held".
When attorney Bill White of the Michael Best and Friedrich LLP law firm wrote to Elmwood officials early in May to withdraw permit applications for a proposed massive Glacier Bay water park to be built by Wilderness Development Inc., many officials and observers expressed surprise. The real surprise for Elmwood Township officials at this point however is the fact that the letter of withdrawal is the last communication received from Michael Best, while the escrow account established to pay for analysis of the application, and to be funded by the applicants, is (according to Elmwood officials) $22,323.74 in arrears.
Bill Swanson, township Planner acknowledged that, "To be honest, it looks like we're going to have to eat some of this." in addressing the fund shortfall. Swanson explained that the account was established to hold funds provided by the applicants to be used to pay bills incurred by the township in consulting with various experts in review of the Glacier Bay project. Attorneys for Wilderness Development had made several payments during the review process to the account to cover invoices submitted by Elmwood's attorney and a consulting planning firm, LSL Associates of Grand Rapids.
Under terms set forth by the township and agreed to by Michael Best and Friedrich, the escrow account balance was to be maintained at all times at a minimum of $10,000. Records obtained from Elmwood Clerk Connie Preston indicate that the account balance dipped as low as -$18,508.90 in the months prior to the withdrawal of the Wilderness Development applications. On at least one occasion during the planning commission review process work was stopped on Township Attorney Jim Young's advice that the escrow account was underfunded.
Clerk Preston acknowledged that monitoring of the status of the account was "Up to me." and that unless other township officials were to look expressly for the information, the status of the account would not have been accessible. Preston noted that information regarding payments being made by the township to consultants would have been included in regular expense reports submitted to the Elmwood Board of Trustees.
Preston notes that the final communication submitted by attorney White ending the review process included statements indicating the applicant's intention to settle all accounts.
Applicant's attorney White did not return a call requesting comment before the publication of this story.
The Cherry Marketing Institute has hired the creator of the famous "Got milk?" campaign to help market tart cherries. Jeff Manning's four-month contract will be worth about $30,000 and is ultimately funded by a surcharge on cherry growers.
According to this Freep article, Manning will help set goals of the marketing program, test methods, and develop the actual marketing plan.
The Leelanau Township Community Foundation will help lower-income households connect the new Northport sewer system. The grants may help to bridge some of the divisions opened by the recent recall campaign in the village.
The recall campaign, which failed, was directed against village officials who had supported the new sewer project. Among the arguments against the project were the costs imposed on residents forced to hook up to the new line. The Leelanau Township group will use $150,000 to make grants to help families make the hookup, according to this Record-Eagle article.
A new use is being discussed for the 230-acre "Milliken property" in Elmwood Township which was recently proposed as the site for a massive waterpark. Traverse City civic leaders and others are discussing way the convert the property to a center for the arts and uses like a botanical garden and perhaps even a new home for the Traverse City zoo.
Both the Record-Eagle and the Leelanau Enterprise /a> have run stories in the past two days about the plans.
Leelanau County schools are in a funding crisis, and creative solutions are being explored--including the sharing of personnel and other resources. At the bottom, however, the problem has a simple cause: our schools are not receiving enough money from the state.
This Record-Eagle article describes how one group is fighting for equity in the distribution of funding to state schools.
Deri Smith's lawsuit against three Elmwood township men she claims defamed her must go forward, ruled 13th Circuit Court judge Philip Rodgers.
At stake is Smith's claim that Don Barrows, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek engaged in character assassination when they circulated materials they knew to be false in a mailing to Suttons Bay residents. As this this Record-Eagle story describes, Rodgers expressed incredulity at claims of Flohe and Stanek that they did not know the contents of envelopes they stuffed.
Officials with the Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department have confirmed a case of West Nile virus in a dead crow found in Elmwood Township near Fouch Road.
This Record-Eagle article has the story on the first appearance of the virus this year.
One year later, what lessons can be learned from the Septage Treatment Plant fiasco? There's plenty of blame to go around, and no shortage of those to assign it to.
As this Record-Eagle article shows, blame should be placed first with the water and sewer committee, comprised of the supervisors of Elmwood, East Bay, Garfield, Peninsula, and Acme townships at the time the decisions were made. In the case of Elmwood township, that would have been former Supervisor (2000-2004) Noel Flohe who signed off on a financing scheme that was politically expedient but woefully unrealistic.
Second, blame accrues to the Grand Traverse Board of Public works, whose chairman, Doug Mansfield, recently acknowledged that the BPW acted as a rubber stamp for the water and sewer committee in the matter.
Third, project manager and BPW attorney Michael Houlihan shows up badly. Houlihan helped sell an unrealistic project to the water and sewer committee, and continues to profit handsomely from the project's legal fallout.
Fourth, the Gordie-Fraser company seems to have displayed a remarkable level of incompetence on the project, their engineer professing ignorance of industry standards for walls like the one that failed.
Is there any theme that pulls it all together? We think so. Michael Houlihan has been the BPW attorney for decades. Gordie-Fraser has been the DPW's engineer for almost 40 years. Gordie-Fraser wrote the request for proposals on the project and got the job even though they were not the low bid. In Elmwood, Gordie-Fraser has played a similar role, serving for years as the township's engineer, representing developers before the planning commission, and taking an active role under Flohe's administration in the drafting of the township's new zoning ordinance. In every case at each point along the line, cronyism and favoritism diminished the possibility of doing the project right.
The septage plant fiasco was a project that was managed by the old boy network for the old boy network--and it turned out just as badly as do most enterprises where merit, openness, and impartiality go by the wayside. When will we stop doing things this way in Leelanau County?
Nancy Kenney's long quest to find what exactly happened to her father came to an end Friday when navy divers confirmed that a submarine found sunk in the Gulf of Thailand was in fact the USS Legarto.
Kenney, of Lake Leelanau, was only two years old when her father went down on a mission to attack a Japanese convoy. But for the past six decades she has been trying to piece together the story of how and where her father was lost. This New York Times piece tells the story of the investigation that finally answered her questions.
The green slime is here. The blobs of algae that plagued Great Lakes shorelines in the 1960's are back.
This AP article described the resurgence of algae blooms, this time cause perhaps caused by the zebra mussel.
The Leelanau Conservancy has officially taken title to the 145-acre DeYoung farmstead in Elmwood township.
Now begins what Conservancy director Brian Price calls a "marathon" effort to raise the approximately $2 million cost of the project, which will include restoration and reuse of some of the farm's many historic buildings. This Record-Eagle story has some of the details. For even more on the DeYoung property, take a look at the Conservancy's site
The Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore continues to move ahead with the development of its general management plan, a document that will shape the ways the park is used for years to come.
This Record-Eagle article describes some of the issues and some of the players involved in the process.
A conflict is brewing over who will pay the costs for the collapsed septage treatment plant in Grand Traverse County. Five local townships, including Elmwood, are liable for the costs of the plant, which have ballooned as use revenues have fallen short.
As this Record-Eagle story describes, the townships' proposal to cover an annual $600,000 in revenues by imposing a surcharge on new septic tanks is being opposed by Grand Traverse County officials.
The business model for the plant was devised by county attorney Michael Houlihan and local engineering firm Gordie-Fraser, according to Acme township supervisor Bill Kurtz. The Gordie-Fraser firm was also involved in the design of the plant, which collapsed last June.
Among the 10 northern Michigan state legislators, Jason Allen is the only one to accept contributions into secret accounts that avoid Michigan campaign finance law.
This Record-Eagle article, latest in a series documenting Allen's practices, has the details.
A must-read set of stories in the Record-Eagle Sunday paper about Jason Allen's hidden campaign contributions. This kind of legal bribery is a rot that infests our national, state, and local politics.
You can read all the sorry details here, here, here, and here.
It's sad to think this man may be the next majority leader in our State Senate. Even sadder to think that he represents Traverse City.
The fallout from the septage treatment plant disaster continues. The anticipated revenues from the plant, which were based on estimates from the Gordie-Fraser engineering firm, have fallen far short. Representatives of the five townships financially committed to the plant, including Leelanau's Elmwood Township, are struggling with ways to fulfill their obligations to cover bond payments.
According to this this Record-Eagle article, the townships have agreed to raise permit costs on new septic systems, in some cases by hundreds of dollars, to cover the costs. Rejected alternatives included a special tax assessment and mandating the pumping of septic tanks.
The plant collapsed last June, a month after its opening. The plant was designed by the same Gordie-Fraser firm that provided the inaccurate estimates of the revenues it would generate.
[Via the Leelanau News Blog] A Glen Lakeschool board member has written a letter to the Detroit Free Press asking the paper's suburban readership to help remedy the inequities in the way downstate and Leelanau County area schools are funded.
Jeff Smith of Cedar writes in this letter published in the Freep that while the Birmingham school district receives about $12,000 per pupil from the state, Leelanau school districts like Glen Lake receive only about $7,000 per pupil. Smith urges the Free Presses readers in Birmingham and other wealthy districts to help to raise the level of funding for Leelanau's students to a comparable level, citing the many benefits such funding would have for the area's financially strapped schools.
See here for an earlier Leelanau Post story on the same subject.
Campaign finance reports have been filed in connection with the recent recall election. Although pro-recall forces filed a report for one of the organizations behind its effort, Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials, they declined to file for a second group, Elmwood Township Alliance. Both groups list the same address on their registrations, and critics (including the Leelanau Post) have charged that the second group appears to have been organized in order to hide the names of its funders. A third group whose name appeared on a pro-recall mailing, Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government, neither registered with the County Clerk nor filed. That group also listed the same address, that of former Elmwood Harbormaster Chuck Lessard and his wife Ellie, on its materials.
According to this Record-Eagle story, ECHO reported expenses of $1,149. Opponents of the recall, organized under the name of the Committee to Support Deri Smith, spent $2,442. It is not known how much was spent by the other two groups supporting the recall.
The vote on a farmland preservation millage for Leelanau County has been scheduled for Nov. 7 by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners. The levy would be a 15-year, 0.5 mill tax.
According to this Record-Eagle story, a 0.5 mill tax equals 50 cents per year per $1,000 of taxable value and would raise almost a million dollars during its first year. George Wellman of Save Leelanau Farmland says that the tax could preserve more than 2,900 acres of farmland over the next 15 years.
Demolition of the burned out Orchard Creek assisted living facility has begun. The building burned in March in a fire apparently started by a discarded cigarette butt. Once demolition has completed, work will begin on a replacement facility.
According to this TV 7-4 story the new facility. called the Supportive Care Facility, should be functioning by fall
Once again, the Traverse City area's gas prices are the highest in the state.
Prices are up all over the state, according to this Freep article--but no place more than in the Cherry Capital. What gives?
Monday night's meeting of the Elmwood Board of Trustees produced one interesting revelation: both Treasurer Debbie Street and Trustee Terry Lautner think the Planning Commission should have at least one member who "doesn't believe in zoning."
We're trying to think of a comparison here...wouldn't it be like a baseball umpire who believes the game of baseball should not be played? What could we expect from such an umpire, except an attempt to undermine the game itself?
Of course, planning and zoning are not a game--in fact, they are arguably the single most import function (and justification) of township government. If these members think that zoning and township government are a sham, perhaps they could set a good example by resigning themselves.
The Record-Eagle ran another editorial today concerning the apparent hanky-panky in the unsuccessful attempt to recall Elmwood supervisor Deri Smith first reported by the Post. They suggest that investigators bring "a big flashlight" to investigate various inconsistencies and rule-bending in the campaign committees which were behind the recall.
Four mailings critical of Smith were sent to Elmwood residents during the campaign from three different committee names. All three committees listed the same street address in Elmwood.
Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO) was listed as the source of the first mailing in support of the recall. There is no registration for the group at the county clerk's office, as required by law. A second mailing was sent by Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials (ECHO), whose treasurer is registered as Ellie Lessard. The third and fourth mailings came from the Elmwood Township Alliance, whose treasurer is Ellie's husband, former township harbormaster Charles Lessard.
According to the Record-Eagle, Lessard claims she never heard of the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government group. However, the group's mailing address is the same as that on the other mailings, Lessard's home, and the content is largely the same as the other pieces.
Critics suspect that the multiple committees were organized in order to evade the requirements of campaign finance law, which allows groups spending less than $1000 to dispense with reporting on their finances, including donors. The arrangement made it possible for the recall forces to shield the names of its financial backers, but now state officials are questioning its legality.
The State Attorney General's office says that Leelanau County treasurer Vicki Kilway did not break the law when she accepted work on the side from a company her office had contracted to handle county title research.
Kilway netted about $1800 for 6 or 7 hours work on behalf of Title Check LLC of Kalamazoo. The contract Kilway granted to Title Check was worth about $30,000. According to this Record-Eagle article , County Prosecutor Joe Hubbell said that there is no law specifically prohibiting Kilway's arrangement, and that it is not an unusual one among county treasurers.
Apparently the matter was first brought to the attention of the sheriff's office by Deputy Leelanau County Treasurer Chris Mikowski.
A large crowd at the Cleveland Township Hall heard Tuesday night how the new owner of Sugar Loaf plans to turn the facility into a destination resort for snowboarders and extreme sports.
As the Enterprise story details, some audience members expressed scepticism about the ability of the resort's new owner to finance the project.
It appears likely that the Jim Leyndyke, athletic director for Traverse City Public Schools, will serve as interim superintendent for the Suttons Bay school district.
Suttons Bay and TC have been discussing various collaborative arrangements in the aftermath of the departure this year of Suttons Bay superintendent Tom Harwood and the financial problems challenging both districts. Details at this Record-Eagle article.
Update: The Record-Eagle has a thoughtful editorial on this story.
The Glacier Bay water park in Elmwood township has withdrawn its application, according to Elmwood clerk Connie Preston. The news came at Monday night's meeting of the Elmwood Board of Trustees.
The massive project had encountered fierce community opposition at a public hearing last October. More recently, the Elmwood township Planning Commission had expressed doubts about whether the project would pass under the terms of the current Zoning Ordinance.
Update 5/10/06: The Record-Eagle has details.
The Leelanau Enterprise chimes in here.
The mysteriously multiplying recall committees behind the failed effort to oust Elmwood superivsor Deri Smith continue to attract attention from state officials and local media.
As first reported by the Post, mailings to Elmwood residents were sent out over the names of at least two and possibly three different organizations, all of which shared the same street address. Opponents of the recall suspect that the multiple committees where intended to avoid the requirement that any individual committee spending more than $1000 report on its finances, including the sources of its donations.
Contacted for this Record-Eagle story, Ellie Lessard, who is listed as chairperson of one of the recall committees, denied any wrongdoing.
"There are two committees because there was a group of people interested in seeing her (Smith) recalled who didn't want to be part of ECHO," she said. "Some were interested in the recall for different reasons." As the Record-Eagle notes, however, the mailings from the two groups contain whole paragraphs of identical content.
The final anti-Smith mailing did differ from the earlier pieces in that it charged her with thwarting pro-development interests in the township. Developers have been prominent contributors to earlier campaigns by Smith's political opponents in the township.
Secretary of State spokesperson Kelly Chesney said the department would be reviewing the complaints against the recall forces.
Leelanau County Treasurer Vicki Kilway is being investigated by the county prosecutor concerning her employment by a title company to whom she gave a county contract.
According to this Record-Eagle story, Kilway gave a contract worth about $30,000 to Title Check, LLC of Kalamazoo to do county title research. Title Check subsequently hired Kilway to do title work for the company.
Title Check general manager Marty Spaulding said Kilway's work consisted of 30 to 40 "10-minute jobs." Kilway says that she was paid $1800 after taxes for the work.
Taking Spaulding's upper estimate of time spent, Kilway worked about 400 minutes, which is about 6 and one half hours. That works out to somewhere between $250 and $300 an hour. Nice work, if you can get it!
A military explosives unit from the Selfridge base had to be called in to detonate a device--apparently a large military flare--that was discovered on the shore of West Bay Wednesday. The flare, which was found just north of East Walters Drive, was thought to have fallen from "an unknown military aircraft," (!) according to a Leelanau Sheriff's department press release.
Recently fired Sheriff’s deputy Bruce Beeker had a lengthy record of disciplinary actions and scores of “inappropriate” contacts with a suspect in an assault investigation. Beeker blames departmental politics for his dismissal.
This Record-Eagle story details some of the disciplinary actions against Beeker, including two suspensions following sexual harassment allegations. In the most current case, Beeker allegedly convinced a junior co-worker not to arrest a domestic violence suspect, telling the officer “I’ll take the heat.” Beeker then had numerous phone calls, face to face meetings, and text messages with Shari Prevost, a suspect in a domestic violence case.
Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith enjoyed a 687-586 margin in turning back a recall effort mounted by her political foes. Former Supervisor Noel Flohe and former trustee John Stanek, both of whom had been ousted by Elmwood voters in 2004, had organized a campaign against Smith that included multiple mailings and yard signs.
"I am so very relieved that we can finally put this recall ordeal behind us," said Smith, who pledged to put the divisive campaign behind and to work together with all members of the community. "Its time for us to focus now on doing our jobs, to stop playing games, and to produce something constructive for Elmwood."
All seven members of the Northport village council retained their seats in a recall election that focused on a controversial new sewer system. President Michael Rogers Sr. and trustees William Brendel, Richard Burmeister, Steven Mattson, Fredrick Thomas, Stephen Wetherbee and Barbara VonVoigtlander all were affirmed by comfortable margins, according to this Record-Eagle story.
A complaint was filed today against the organizers of a campaign to recall Elmwood supervisor Deri Smith. Nancy Doughty, co-chair of the Committee to Support Derith Smith, filed papers with the Secretary of State alleging that recall supporters organized multiple committees in order to circumvent financial reporting requirements of the elections law.
As the Post reported yesterday, the organizers of the campaign against Smith have registered at least three committees with County Clerk Michelle Crocker, each claiming an exemption from campaign finance reporting requirements because less than $1000 was expected to be collected in donations. State officials contacted by the Post agreed that this seems like a transparent attempt to evade the requirement that those who collect more than $1000 must reveal the names of all donors, as well as other information. All three of the anti-Smith committees are listed as having the same street address in Elmwood Township, as well as the same organizer.
The anti-Smith mailings have been sent out under a number of names. The first mailing was from the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government. Another mailing changed the name to the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials. Most recently, a mailing went out under the name of the Elmwood Township Alliance.
It seems there is more than one registered committee active in the effort to recall Elmwood supervisor Deri Smith. Trouble is, they all have the same organizers and the same street address. Voters may wonder whether there really is more than one group behind the effort, and if not, why they have gone to the trouble to make it appear that there is.
Mailings to township residents have been sent out now over the names of three different committees. One mailing, sent in early April, bore the name of Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO). A subsequent mailing changed the name to Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials. And a third mailing, sent last week, was from a group calling itself the Elmwood Township Alliance. All had different ID numbers, as required by law.
In every case the committees list the same street address on Bayview Court in Elmwood with the same organizer’s last name. Which raises the question: why the different committee names? Let’s assume that the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO) became the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials (ECHO) because it makes a better acronym. Where does Elmwood Township Alliance come from?
Some facts: Campaign finance laws specify that committees that spend less than $1000 do not need to file finance statements, nor to reveal the name of their donors. Campaigns that spend over $1000, on the other hand, must reveal all such information. In past Elmwood elections, the John Stanek / Noel Flohe party that is behind the recall received its biggest contributions by far from various Elmwood developers and developer wannabes. The current campaign certainly is an expensive one, with multiple, elaborate mailings and campaign signs. Could it be that this campaign is being financed again by contributions from developers and others who hope to benefit from a return to power by the Elmwood old guard of Flohe and Stanek? And that they, or the people running the campaign, would prefer to keep that information hidden?
Is it illegal to register multiple committees organized by the same people for the same ballot question? The Post will be researching this question. If it’s not, it should be, as it seems clearly intended to frustrate and circumvent the law’s intention to make clear the financing of election campaigns and keep the benefactors’ identities hidden from the voters.
There are a couple of things the people running the campaign against Deri Smith can do to lay to rest the suspicions that their campaign has been bought and paid for by developers. First: they can reveal a complete list of their contributors, with the amounts they donated. The Committee to Support Deri Smith has said they will do that. And second, they can explain the reasons behind this very unusual arrangement.
These “groups” need to come clean before the election takes place. Voters deserve to know who is bankrolling the campaign to recall Deri Smith.
A key witness in the recall campaign against Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith has stepped back from the allegation that Smith threatened a female member of the Planning Commission. A mailing earlier this month from a group supporting the recall claimed that Elmwood township Planner Bill Swanson witnessed threats by Smith against an unnamed planning commissioner. But interviewed by the Post, Swanson characterized the allegation as “an exaggeration.” The mailing was sent by ECHO (Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government).
According to Smith, the conversation had to do with the costs of unauthorized contacts between the planning commissioner and the township attorney. A policy regulating such contacts was later put in place by the board.
Other charges associated with the recall campaign have also been called into question. In another mailing by the same group, allegations were made concerning Smith’s performance. As long ago as May 2005, however, Suttons Bay Village Manager Chuck Stewart told members of the group in writing that the allegations were unfounded. Nevertheless, the charges continue to be circulated by the recall group.
The Michigan Land Use Institute's Julie Hay has a good analysis of the Northport recall contest here. (Hat tip: The Leelanau News Blog)
School officials in Suttons Bay are looking into the possibility of a merger with the Traverse City school system. Declining enrollments in Leelanau and TC have led to large budget deficits next year, and to a flurry of interest in mergers and collaborations as a way of trimming expenses.
This Leelanau Enterprise story has the details. Suttons Bay is coming off an experiment where they shared a superintendent with Glen Lake schools. All the Leelanau school districts have engaged in talks about various forms of collaboration and cooperation, but one obstacle has been the different millages assessed in the different districts. Suttons Bay and Traverse City are alike in that they both assess the maximum millage on non-homestead properties, 18 mills, which is more than most other Leelanau districts are willing to pay for their kids' educations.
If the two districts were joined, Suttons Bay students would have access to TC's Montessori and Talented and Gifted programs. That would be a plus, as I can testify from personal experience.
According to Glen Lake's outgoing superintendent, Tom Harwood, the legal form of the merger would be an annexation of the Suttons Bay district by TC.
A Leelanau County sheriff's deputy was recently fired for having a relationship with a woman whom he investigated.
According to this Record-Eagle story, Bruce Beeker was dismissed because he had a "consensual" relationship with a woman whom he first met when responding to a domestic violence case.
Representatives of five area townships, including Elmwood, voted Friday to accept Gordie-Fraser's proposed fixes to its failed Grand Traverse County septage plant.
Acme Township Supervisor Bill Kurtz was the lone dissenter. According to the Record-Eagle, Kurtz said the original design "was poorly designed, poorly constructed, and had poor oversight." Of Gordie-Fraser, he added "I have no confidence in them."
In the wake of the shakeup to their leadership, House Republicans have promoted our congressman, Rep Dave Camp (R-Midland), to serve as spokesperson for the effort to make President Bush's 2003 tax cuts permanent.
Camp got off to a rocky start in his new position when he misstated the facts about who benefits from such cuts. Camp claimed on the House floor that "Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends.''
In fact, I.R.S. data show that among the 90% of taxpayers who make less than $100,000, just one in seven benefited from the cuts in dividend taxes and just one in 20 from the capital gains reduction.
Questioned about the discrepancy, Camp asserted through his office that he had been mislead by a House staffer, but that making the cuts permanent was ''good policy and good for our economy.''
Although they do little for the middle and working classes, the tax cuts have been a bonanza for the richest Americans. Among those making more $10 million a year, tax bills have gone down an average of $1 million per year as a result of the Bush cuts. These taxpayers, whose average income is $26 million per year, pay about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 per year, thanks to the investment tax cuts championed by Camp.
Leelanau Sheriff's Department deputy Bruce Beeker has been dismissed for violating "department policies and procedures."
According to this Record-Eagle article, Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf has declined to be any more specific about Beeker's offenses, citing Beeker's rights to dispute his firing.
This little guy escaped from his trailer today on Grandview Parkway near Toms. After wandering through various parking lots, he headed west up M-72, pursued by multiple squad cars, tv crews, and curious bystanders
I'm sure you'll see him on the news tonight. At the rate he was going, he'll be in Empire around midnight.
Update 4/20/06: The calf was eventually captured by Elmwood Township Trustee Terry Lautner, a man who has some experience with cows. The Record-Eagle has a picture.
Elmwood Township Planning Commission members voted Tuesday night to table a vote on two important amendments until their May 2 meeting. The two amendments would have established new standards for the Recreational-Commercial (RC-1) zoning district and for PUD (planned unit development) developments. The second amendment has attracted attention for its innovative use of a "hearing officer" who would review and, in one version, decide on PUD applications. The use of a hearing officer is common in other states, but seems to be unprecedented in Michigan. Advocates for the practice (including township attorney Jim Young) say it can help depoliticize a process that is often controversial.
The vote on the two amendments was put off in order to give the planning commissioners and staff time to analyze and digest comments from the public, including a lengthy and detailed comment from the Gordie-Fraser company. The local engineering firm is representing the Glacier Bay water park proposed for the township's largest RC-1 parcel. Several planning commissioners expressed chagrin that the Gordie-Fraser comments were presented only on the evening of the meeting, with no time for review. The Glacier Bay developers have said that they want their project to be considered under the ordinance as it is currently written, without the proposed amendments, and--perhaps coincidentally--the late submission of Gordie-Fraser's comments will have the effect of delaying any implementation of the new amendments.
Your National Lakeshore is losing some eight acres of woodland this spring. The trees are being removed to modify The Homestead Resort’s sewage disposal system. It’s a story that began 34 years ago, and one most folks find quite surprising—
Back in the early ‘70’s, when Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was an infant, the owners of a large tract of property east of the resort faced being required to sell the land for creation of the new park, as did others whose property had not been developed before 1964. However, unlike most folks, they 1) apparently had very good lawyers, and 2) had a major family interest in The Homestead. They came up with the idea of selling an easement for a 13-acre “seepage area” to the resort, for $1. When the property was purchased for the Park, it came encumbered with the easement. Effectively, the owners had avoided giving up use of the land, while getting paid for it.
While the easement gave the resort considerable control over the property, at least the Park was able to utilize the surface of the land. Everyone knew what a seepage area was—a system of underground pipes that allowed wastewater to seep into the soil. Meanwhile, cross-country ski trails crossed the land above, hunters staked it out, and mushroom-lovers roamed it.
Unfortunately, during the ‘80’s the Homestead’s sewage system began to fail. It was overloaded, and DNR tests showed that the groundwater was being polluted. Sewage oozed from hillsides. Citizens threatened lawsuits. The resort came up with the idea of spraying their partially-treated sewage out over the ground, allowing the vegetation to absorb some of the nitrogen that had been causing problems. Anxious to resolve the problem, the superintendent of the Park agreed to the program, with the condition that most of the existing trees (and there were some huge ones) would remain.
During following years there have been numerous problems, including spray that routinely drifts over the easement boundaries to surrounding Park lands. The system has never been properly maintained, and has not functioned adequately. The groundwater again tests over prescribed limits.
Now the resort has decided that the old trees need to be removed and replaced with a grass mixture that can absorb more nitrogen. Although experts have stated that the spray system never should have been allowed, officials have concluded that the Park cannot now contest the spray or the tree cutting.
The land is now being clear-cut. It’s too late for the trees, but concerned citizen groups such as Northern Michigan Environmental Action Coalition (NMEAC) and Michigan Land Use Institute (MLUI) are now watching, and will try to make sure the system is properly built and maintained to avoid the continuing drift of hazardous spray. MLUI's contact for information is Julie Hay, Leelanau County Policy Specialist, 941-6584; julie@mlui.org.
Here are the texts of the new Zoning Ordinance amendments to be discussed at the public hearing on Tuesday, April 18. See this article for details and analysis of these new measures.
There are two versions of the proposed PUD language. In this one, the hearing officer in effect makes a final decision on the matter before them. In this version, the hearing officer simply makes a recommendation to the township Board of Trustees.
Here is the language for the Resort Commercial (RC-1) District.
With the announcement of a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 18th, to be held at the Elmwood Township Hall at 7pm, the Elmwood Township Planning Commission is inviting the public to take a look at the first installment it is proposing for the township's developing new zoning ordinance. Intended to be adopted both into Elmwood's existing zoning ordinance, and to become a part of its new ordinance, the proposed code consists of newly defined standards for the township's Resort-Commercial zoning district, and of newly defined standards for the implementation of Planned Unit Development (PUD) projects. Currently the Resort Commercial district is the only zoning district in Elmwood to accommodate PUD projects.
Elmwood entered into a zoning up-date process in the mid 1990s with a stated goal of producing a new master plan and a new zoning ordinance to support it. After a period of public input and one false start, the township board accepted and unanimously adopted a master plan in 1998. The creation of the plan had been facilitated by consultants Wade Trim Associates while working in conjunction with the Elmwood Planning Commission. The plan received universal support at the planning commission level at the time of its completion as well. With phase one behind them, the Elmwood Planning Commission began work on its new zoning ordinance by hiring consultants from the Gourdie-Fraser engineering firm to assist in putting the zoning code together.
The process never progressed smoothly. Work on the ordinance began almost concurrently with the Planning Commission's involvement with a controversial project known as Lincoln Meadows. Elmwood government insiders at the time were to face court scrutiny based on apparent conflict of interest problems arising from the review of that project, along with criticism stemming from perceived issues with their interpretation of zoning rules. The ongoing battle over the propriety of that development was to run for years pitting citizens on one side against the Township and project developers on the other. While becoming more deeply embroiled in their problems with The Meadows, The same officials were growing more and more alarmed with the zoning ordinance draft they were being presented with by Gourdie-Fraser. Rather than creating the possibility for suburban development as represented by Lincoln Meadows, ordinance drafts written to back up the township's master plan were expressly calling for something more substantially in support of rural living and agricultural uses in the ag-openspace district. Gourdie-Fraser was (and still is) Elmwood's contract engineering firm. At the time they were preparing marina expansion projects, a water system expansion, and were working as consultants for applicants for land use approvals before Elmwood planning staff, boards and commissions. The Gourdie-Fraser planner that had been working on the zoning ordinance project was removed from the job. Over the protests of a vocal minority of planning commissioners and closely engaged members of the public, the Elmwood Planning Commission went on to write permissive development standards into the ordinance in the face of a master plan that required something else, submitting an ordinance that was finally adopted by the Elmwood Board of Trustees late in 2002. By July of 2003 that ordinance had bee rejected at the polls in an overwhelming referendum vote by township voters.
The elected township board of 2000-2004 and its planning commission could never come to grips with accommodating the provisions of the Elmwood Master Plan and accepting the voters' will to have that plan adhered to in a zoning ordinance. The planning commission and its consultant pushed and prodded at the failed ordinance but never addressed the essential elements that lead to its downfall. No progress was made until after the election of 2004.
The election of 2004 introduced several voices that had argued against the defeated zoning ordinance to the township board and administration, and had excused several township officials that been seen as the primary authors of both the Lincoln Meadows and the zoning ordinance debacles. Change was in the air. On top of the election results, it was discovered that appointments to the planning commission had been so hopelessly entangled that it had become impossible to determine which terms were valid, and which seats were lawfully occupied. On the advice of the township attorney the planning commission was dissolved and created anew. In the process many fresh voices became a part of the official discussion. The Board of Trustees hired a new, more independent, planning consultant, and the process has been rejuvenated.
The ordinance up-dates to be presented on Tuesday April 18th are the first fruits of Elmwood's fresh look at zoning issues, and as such offer an interesting first glance into the direction and forms zoning reform is likely to take. Language and standards put forth in the Resort Commercial rewrite are a particular contrast to existing code standards.
Where Elmwood's current ordinance lists possible outdoor recreational uses to be allowed in the district along with secondary commercial and recreational uses that may be constructed, the standards by which the planning commission is to measure the appropriate scale and intensity is left to its interpretation as to conformance with the master plan. Like more conventional ordinances, the proposed code sets out clearly measurable and definable requirements in black and white, requirements designed from the outset to back up Elmwood's master plan. While gray areas regarding the intensity and density of uses are largely eliminated, the flexibility of PUD development will still allow developers to configure uses to best serve successful design.
Developments in the PUD article itself are interesting in their innovation. While accepted and conventional in many areas of the country, Elmwood is presenting a PUD approval process based on the oversight of an independent administrative "Public Hearing Officer", something rarely if ever seen in Michigan. Current PUD application processes are lumbering and ungainly activities based on the presentation to and evaluation by the planning commission of vast quantities of technical data and reports. The commission must review all this, usually relying to a great extent on technical consultants, to make a committee decision on whether projects meet ordinance standards. The proposed Hearing Officer would be an expert independent planner, or an attorney with a municipal or planning specialty. That single administrator would conduct the public hearing where all evidence regarding the application pro or con would be submitted, and make a determination as to the suitability of the application following a detailed point by point review. Questions regarding the Officer's judgment would be taken up by the planning commission on a by request basis.
The striking qualities shared by both these proposals, in stark contrast to Elmwood's current rules, are those that function to de-politicize the interpretation of the rules and the process for approval. Its easy to see that the current authors are keenly aware of what has gone before in the township, and are striving to create easy to understand, easy to enforce, and easier to process zoning rules that support the provisions of the master plan.
While some of the standards presented in these two new Articles are deserving of further discussion, for instance residential development can still take place on a metes and bounds basis at 1 unit per 5 acres—a standard commentators on every side of the land use debate in Elmwood agree is a recipe for sprawl, one can only be impressed with the contrast these standards and procedures make in comparison to the existing codes.
It appears that Elmwood officials are determined to close the loopholes and define the gray areas that for years have caused the township to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue over interpretations of its obsolescent and contradictory zoning ordinance. It seems that the authority for direction and the object of the standards that are being created, finally, is the township master plan.
In a major reversal, the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners voted Tuesday to allow a public vote on a millage for farmland preservation. In a 4-3 vote, the Commissioners decided to put the measure on the ballot but to delay the review of the ballot language for a month.
Commissioner Hawley, Save Leelanau Farmland president George Wellman, County Administrator David Gill and a county attorney will finalize the ballot language including the date for the vote.
There was a large turnout of local farmers and residents who spoke in support of farmland preservation during the public speaking time period. Some who spoke against the proposal to put the measure on the ballot felt the program would not work well. Save Leelanau Farmland presented information from a survey showing that land use issues are the most important topics of concern for the public. The organization also presented data that shows that 70% believe the millage (0.5 mills/15 years) should go to the public for a vote.
Don Coe of Black Star Farms spoke about how the agricultural and tourism industries are linked so that saving farmland is an important part of encouraging prosperity in Leelanau County.
Commissioners Melinda Lautner of Solon, Mark Walter and Jean Watkoski of Elmwood voted against the measure. Commissioners Hawley, Buneck, Schliffet and Tonneberger voted yes.
ARTICLE IX
RESORT COMMERCIAL RC-1
SECTION 9.1.0 INTENT
The RC-1 District implements the Elmwood Township Master Plan by maximizing protection of its rural atmosphere and its natural environment and by complementing the character of surrounding neighborhoods. This is accomplished by permitting resorts with limited commercial development that satisfy market needs of the local community, including seasonal residents and tourists, without compromising Elmwood Township’s rural/residential character.
Such commercial resorts must help maintain a local sense of community by integrating a mix of land uses that are of a size, character, function, and location suitable to the needs of Elmwood Township and are sited so as to minimize impacts on and views from adjacent properties and roads. They are intended to have primarily an outdoor orientation so that they enhance quality of life while preserving the open, rural character of the Township. Any commercial uses with a large consumer draw and/or a high automobile trip generation rate should be avoided and any non-residential, or intensive outdoor recreation elements should be generally located centrally and to the interior of a site.
This District is a restrictive zone and it is intended to permit development only after in depth review. Such a process helps promote the protection and enhancement of critical elements such as natural resources, surface and groundwater quality, steep slopes, and woodlots. In addition, it helps ensure the availability of adequate utilities and public services, and the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 9.1.1 PERMITTED USES
1. Single family residences on parcels 5 acres or larger.
2. Clustered Housing Developments pursuant to the requirements of Article XIII A.
3. Commercial resorts – Approved pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID, Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Commercial resorts must include primary commercial use(s) and may include secondary commercial and residential use(s). The following factors will be used to determine whether a proposed outdoor recreation use constitutes a primary commercial use:
I. Compare the development, capital and operating costs associated with primary commercial uses with those associated with secondary commercial uses.
II. Compare the number of persons participating in activities associated with primary commercial uses with those participating in activities associated with secondary commercial uses
III. Compare the anticipated annual revenues associated with primary commercial uses with those associated with secondary commercial uses.
a. Primary commercial uses - Outdoor recreation uses such as: cross country and downhill skiing, sledding, ice skating, golf courses, equestrian facilities and trails, pedestrian trails, and swimming pools.
b. Secondary commercial uses - Uses that are directly related or integral to primary commercial use(s) but that are of a supporting nature including: hotels/ motels, and restaurants. Also related uses, such as snack bars, small retail shops selling goods directly related to or integral to the primary outdoor recreational uses and indoor recreation uses such as tennis and racquet ball courts, equestrian riding rings, and swimming pools.
c. Residential uses - Single family, two-family and multiple family dwelling units that are developed in conjunction with a commercial resort.
SECTION 9.1.2 ACCESSORY USES
1. Accessory buildings and uses that are customarily incidental to the permitted uses.
SECTION 9.1.3 COMMERCIAL RESORT REQUIREMENTS
A. Lot and Building Requirements
Minimum lot area: 40 acres
Perimeter setbacks: 100 feet for all buildings, structures and parking lots
Maximum Height: 35 feet
Maximum Building Length: 300 feet
B. Open Space Requirements
1. Minimum open space – Areas devoted to open space and/or unpaved outdoor recreation areas shall constitute no less than 65 percent of an entire site. For the purposes of this ordinance unpaved outdoor recreation areas include by example: downhill and cross country skiing trails, golf courses, equestrian centers, and soccer, baseball and football fields.
C. Development Density
1. Residential
a. The maximum number of permitted dwelling units shall be calculated based on one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres of an entire site.
2. Secondary Commercial Uses
a. The area devoted to secondary commercial uses, as defined in Section 9.1.1.3.b, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses shall not exceed 5% of an entire site. Supplemental commercial areas shall include by example parking, loading and service areas. Hard surface outdoor recreation uses include facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, skating rinks, and swimming pools and their related deck areas.
3. The area devoted to commercial use contained in a commercial resort may be increased by substituting permitted residential dwelling units for commercial site area based on a conversion factor of one dwelling unit for each additional 2,000 square feet devoted to secondary commercial uses, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses.
D. Sample Commercial Resort Density Calculation for a 100 acre parcel:
Step Requirement Process Result
Step One Minimum lot area is 40 acres. Determine entire site area (in acres) based on a boundary survey. 100 acres
Step Two Maximum number of allowed dwelling units is 1 per 2.5 acres. Divide entire site area by 2.5. 40 dwelling units
Step Three 65% in open space or unpaved outdoor recreation areas. Take 65% of entire site. 65 acres
Step Four Maximum 5% of the site area may be developed for secondary commercial uses, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface recreation areas Take 5% of entire site. 5 acres
Step Five Permitted dwelling units can be substituted for additional commercial site area by converting a dwelling unit to 2,000 square feet of secondary commercial use, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses. To determine maximum additional commercial site area multiply the number of permitted dwelling units by 2,000. 80,000 sq. ft.
additional commercial site area,
(about 1.4 acres).
SECTION 9.1.4 SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
1. Single Family Residences:
Minimum lot size: 5 acres
Minimum lot width: 200 feet
Setbacks:
Front – 30 feet
Side – 30 feet
Rear – 50 feet
Water’s edge – 50 feet
Maximum Height: 35 feet
DEFINITIONS
HOTEL/MOTEL
A building or group of buildings on the same lot, whether detached or attached, containing sleeping or dwelling units, which may or may not be independently accessible from the outside, with garage or parking spaces located on the lot. The term shall include any building or building groups designated as motor lodges, transient cabins, rooms, or by any other title intended to identify them as providing lodging, with or without meals, for compensation on a transient or periodic basis.
USE, PRIMARY COMMERCIAL
The main use of land as developed and occupied, including the activities that are conducted on the site for a majority of the hours during which activities occur, as distinguished from a secondary commercial use.
USE, SECONDARY COMMERCIAL
Any use that is secondary to the primary commercial use.
ARTICLE XIII D
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
SECTION 13D.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE
A. The provisions of this Article establish the authority and standards for the submission, review, and approval of applications for Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is the intent of the Article to authorize the creation of PUDs as a Special Land Use (referred to as Conditional Land Uses in other sections of this Ordinance) for the purposes of:
1. Encouraging the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability;
2. Conserving natural resources, natural features, and energy;
3. Encouraging innovation in land use planning;
4. Providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, recreational, and open space opportunities for the people of Elmwood Township;
5. Bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties; and
6. Facilitating the implementation of the Township Master Plan.
B. The provisions of the Article are not intended as a device for circumventing the Zoning Ordinance or the planning upon which it is based. However, these PUD provisions are designed to permit a degree of flexibility not available through the conventional zoning districts, resulting in a substantially superior development for the community and the ultimate users of the development that could not be achieved otherwise. A PUD for a parcel of land is eligible for consideration if the zoning district in which the land is located authorizes a PUD application.
SECTION 13D.2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL
A. When the Hearing Officer makes a recommendation or the Planning Commission makes a decision regarding a PUD Plan, the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD application that complies with the following standards:
1. The land uses within a PUD shall comply with the uses designated for those lands in the applicable zoning district of the Township Zoning Ordinance where PUDs may be permitted.
2. The PUD shall meet the minimum land area requirements specified for each zoning district where PUDs may be permitted.
3. The lands comprising a PUD must be subject to unified ownership or control, so that the person or legal entity that is applying for PUD approval will have proprietary responsibility for the completion of the development, if approved. If multiple persons or legal entities have ownership interests in the land, all such persons or entities shall sign the PUD application or, if the application is signed by a prospective purchaser or optionee, written consent to the application by all owners of the land must be submitted with the application.
4. Except as provided in this section, water supply and sanitary sewage disposal in and for a PUD shall be accomplished only by public or community water supply and sanitary sewer systems, approved by the Leelanau County Health Department and other agencies having jurisdiction and in compliance with applicable Township ordinances. On-site septic systems and wells may be permitted for individual residential lots of one acre or more in areas that contain a single dwelling, if approved by the Leelanau County Health Department.
5. Motor vehicle access to the uses within a PUD shall be provided only from interior roads.
6. A PUD shall comply with all dimensional and use regulations of the zoning district in which the proposed PUD will be located, unless otherwise modified by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article.
7. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Township Master Plan.
8. The PUD Plan is consistent with the intent of this Article, as described in Section 13D.1, and also represents a development opportunity for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
9. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the intent and all of the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10. The PUD Plan and the uses proposed for the PUD must be compatible with the type, character and density of the existing and anticipated land uses on adjacent and nearby lands.
11. The proposed PUD must be compatible with the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
12. The proposed PUD does not contain uses or conditions of use that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
13. The proposed PUD preserves, in perpetuity, significant natural features, if any.
14. If a proposed PUD lies partially outside the jurisdictional boundary of the Township, then the minimum parcel size shall be based on the total size of the project and not just that portion within the Township.
15. The proposed PUD consolidates and maximizes useable open space.
16. Sufficient landscaping must be provided to insure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property and to create a pleasant pedestrian scale outdoor environment.
17. Safe, convenient and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and access to the development must be provided.
18. Important historical and architectural features, if any, within the development are to be preserved.
19. The PUD Plan also complies with the standards in Section 13C.7, entitled Site Plan Review.
SECTION 13D.3 APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Special Land Use – Hearing Officer & Planning Commission -- Escrow. A PUD shall constitute a Special Land Use. A PUD application shall be decided by the Planning Commission after it receives a proposed decision from a Hearing Officer. The Planning Commission makes the final determination regarding the PUD application. The Hearing Officer shall be appointed by the Township Board and may be appointed on a case-by-case basis or for such a period of time as the Township Board shall deem appropriate. The Hearing Officer shall be a public official when performing the duties required by this Ordinance. The applicant shall place funds in escrow with the Township in such amount as shall be determined by the Township Board to pay for the anticipated charges of the Hearing Officer and any consultants that the Hearing Officer or Planning Commission determines are reasonably necessary to complete the duties imposed on them by this Ordinance. The funds shall be placed in escrow on or before a PUD application is filed with the Township. Based on anticipated future charges, the Township may require the applicant to replenish the escrow fund to its original amount or to a lesser amount when the escrow fund reaches one-third or less of the original amount of the escrow fund. The failure of an applicant to make payments to the escrow fund shall render the PUD application incomplete and not ripe for further consideration. Any monies that remain in the pre-application conference escrow fund may be applied to this escrow fund.
B. Pre-application Conference and Escrow. Prior to submitting an application for a PUD, the applicant shall meet with the Township Planner, Zoning Administrator and any staff and consultants that the Township deems appropriate. If a Hearing Officer has been appointed, the Hearing Officer may attend any pre-application conference. No statements of the Hearing Officer at a pre-application conference shall be construed as a position on the merits of the PUD application. No fee shall be required for this review, except that if the Township will use independent contractors as a Hearing Officer or for legal, planning or other consulting services related to any pre-application conference or as the Hearing Officer, the Township may require that the anticipated costs of those persons to review documents and attend any pre-application conference be paid to the Township in escrow prior to any such conference or conferences. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to determine the eligibility of a project for consideration as a PUD and to discuss PUD application procedures. Multiple pre-application conferences may be held if the potential applicant and Township agree. After the pre-application conference(s) have been completed, the Township representatives shall recommend an amount to be placed in escrow as described in Section 13D.3.A. During at least one
pre-application conference, the applicant shall informally describe the intended concept at the conference, with a sketch plan of the proposed PUD, as well as the following information:
1. The total number of acres in the project;
2. The number of residential units;
3. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses,
4. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
5. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
6. The number of acres to be preserved as open or recreational space; and,
7. All known natural resources and natural features to be preserved and a separate indication of those to be removed.
C. Variations. Variations to any requirements of the underlying zoning district may be authorized by the Planning Commission as long as the approved plan with any variations complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A.
D. PUD Application. Following the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit a completed application form for PUD approval, an application fee, and ten (10) copies of the materials and information shown below. These materials and information are also collectively called the PUD Plan. If the PUD is to be developed in phases, the PUD Plan shall show all phases. The PUD Plan shall contain or have with it:
1. An initial deposit of the required fees associated with a zoning escrow account for reimbursement to the Township for its expenses to review and consider the application.
2. A narrative statement together with supporting charts, maps and documents describing:
a. The total number of acres in the project;
b. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
c. The number of residential units;
d. A residential density calculation indicating the number of dwelling units per gross site area and a more specific residential density calculation by type of unit per gross site area associated with that particular unit type;
e. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses;
f. The number of acres to be preserved as common open or recreational space;
g. The objectives of the proposed PUD and how they relate to the intent and purpose of Planned Unit Development in Elmwood Township, as described in Section 13D.1;
h. The relationship of the proposed PUD to the Township Master Plan;
i. The implementation phases of the PUD and the approximate time frame for each phase;
j. Proposed utility services and how they are to be provided;
k. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be applied within the PUD;
l. Anticipated start and completion dates for construction;
m. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
n. Areas of the site containing significant natural features, including a breakdown of the approximate square feet/acres by type of significant natural feature. Significant natural features shall include: wetlands, flood plains, water bodies, woods, slopes in excess of 25%, active agricultural land, or other unique natural features as determined by a local, state or federal department or agency authorized by law to designate or classify a unique natural feature.
o. Anticipated phases of the PUD;
p. A specific schedule of the intended development and construction schedule details, including phasing and timing; and
q. Signatures of all parties having an interest in the property with a statement of the nature of their interest and intention to see the development of the property completed in accordance with the approval, if granted.
2. Maps shall be drawn at a conventional scale appropriate to the size and scale of the property and development, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. It shall contain the following:
a. The name of the PUD, the applicant’s name, the name and address of the firm or individual who prepared the Preliminary Development Plan, date, scale, and north arrow;
b. Property lines, dimensions of all property lines, and size of the PUD (and individual phases) in acres;
c. Existing zoning and land use of all abutting properties;
d. Significant natural features on the site, as specified in section 13D.3.C.2.n;
e. Existing buildings and structures on the site and that are located on abutting land within fifty (50) feet of a common property line;
f. Proposed uses, buildings and their locations;
g. Rights-of-way and pavement edges or curb lines of existing streets abutting the PUD;
h. Locations of proposed access drives, parking lots and streets within the PUD;
i. Proposed walkways or pedestrian paths;
j. Proposed method of providing water, sanitary sewer, and storm water drainage facilities;
k. Layout and typical dimensions of proposed lots;
l. A specific schedule of the general improvements to constitute a part of the development, including, without limitation, lighting, signs, the mechanisms designed to reduce noise, utilities, and visual screening features; and
m. Specification of the exterior building materials with respect to the structures proposed in the project.
3. The Planning Commission Officer may require additional information reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the review standards and other requirements applicable to a PUD or to determine the impacts of the proposed development. Such information may include, for example, soil reports, hydrological tests, traffic studies, wetland determinations or a market analysis. At any time during the PUD Plan review process, the Planning Commission shall have the right to hire such experts as may be needed to provide independent studies regarding issues related to the PUD approval standards or to review documents or the reports of experts. Fees and expenses related to any such experts shall be paid from the monies that have been paid to the Township in escrow.
E. PUD Public Hearing. Upon determining that the application and all required information are complete, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and the Hearing Officer shall also be present. The Hearing Officer shall preside at the public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be in accordance with the notification procedures for Special Land Uses as described in the Township Zoning Act. At the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall permit comments from the public with respect to the proposed PUD. The public hearing may be adjourned as needed by a majority vote of the Planning Commission to obtain public input, to allow for the gathering of additional factual information, to obtain professional reviews, studies or opinions, to obtain legal advice or for other good cause. In addition, the Hearing Officer or Planning Commission may, but is not required to seek an interpretation of any of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance from the body to whom that interpretation authority has been granted by this Ordinance.
F. Hearing Officer Decision. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall consider whether the proposed PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. and shall prepare a recommended decision for consideration by the Planning Commission. The recommended decision shall include proposed findings of fact and whether the PUD Plan should be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. The recommended decision of the Hearing Officer shall be given to the Planning Commission, mailed to the applicant by first class mail and shall be available at the township offices for the public.
G. Final Decision by the Planning Commission. After the recommended decision of the Hearing Officer has been provided to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall make its decision at any regular or special meeting. Another pubic hearing is not required. However, the Planning Commission may schedule another public hearing to gather additional information regarding any standard if it finds that additional information from experts or consultants is needed to help it determine whether a standard has been met. At a meeting on which the Planning Commission makes its decision, the Planning Commission shall review the record compiled at the public hearing, the reports of any experts or consultants and the Hearing Officer’s recommended decision. More than one meeting may be held. The Planning Commission may invite the Hearing Officer to attend the meeting or any subsequent meeting to explain the recommended decision and to answer questions. The Planning Commission may also invite the applicant or any expert or consultant to a meeting to answer questions that the Planning Commission may have or to explain a report or recommendation. Based on the record compiled at the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall determine whether the PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Planning Commission shall approve or approve with conditions the PUD plan if it complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The proposed PUD shall be denied if it does not meet the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Planning Commission shall make a written decision. The Planning Commission may adopt, as its own decision, the recommended decision of the Hearing Officer or it may modify the recommended decision based on the record created at the public hearing. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be a final decision after the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was adopted has been approved. Once the decision has become final, judicial review may be taken as authorized by law.
H. Optional Procedure - Separate Site Plan Consideration. An applicant may elect to have a PUD site plan considered after an initial PUD has been approved. In this two step process, the initial PUD shall be referenced as a Preliminary PUD Plan while the site plan shall be referenced as a Final PUD Plan. All other provisions of this Article shall apply to this section, except if there are any differences then the provisions of this section shall control. The escrow fund shall be sufficient to cover all costs incurred by the Township because of this optional procedure.
1. Preliminary PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An applicant must submit all information required in Section 13D except items 13D.2. - m, n and o.
b. Standards. All approval standards of this Article shall apply except the site plan standards referenced in Section 13.D.2.14.
2. Final PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An application and 10 copies of a Final PUD Plan meeting the requirements of Section 13D and in compliance with the approved PUD Preliminary PUD Plan must be filed not less than 30 days and not more than 1 year following approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. If not submitted within this period all previous approvals shall expire.
b. Standards. The approval standards in Section 13D.2.A shall apply and shall be substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan.
3. Preliminary and Final PUD Plan Processing. The Preliminary and Final Plan shall be processed using the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission procedures provided in this Article. However, a public hearing shall not be required for a PUD Final Plan.
4. Denial of Final PUD Plan. If the Final PUD Plan is denied because it is not substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan, then the applicant may elect to have the Township treat the rejected Final PUD Plan as a revised PUD Preliminary Plan. The revised PUD Preliminary Development Plan shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures of Sections 13.D.3, which shall include consideration by the Hearing Officer and final Planning Commission action.
SECTION 13D.4 CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PUD
Changes to an approved PUD shall be permitted only under the following circumstances.
A. The holder of an approved PUD Plan shall notify the Zoning Administrator, in writing, of any desired change to the approved PUD.
B. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon determining that the proposed revision(s) will not alter the basic design and character of the PUD, nor any specified conditions imposed as part of the original approval. Minor changes shall include the following:
1. Change in any building size, up to five percent (5%) in gross floor area.
2. Movement of buildings or other structure by no more than ten (10) feet.
3. Replacement of plant material specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size.
4. Changes in building materials to a comparable or higher quality.
5. Changes in floor plans which do not alter the character of the use.
6. Relocation of dumpster or signs.
7. Modification of parking up to ten (10) percent of the total parking area, provided there is no change in the approved driveway location(s).
8. Changes required or requested by the Township, the Leelanau County Road Commission, or other County, State, or Federal regulatory agency in order to conform to other laws or regulations.
9. Change of phases or sequence of phases, only if all phases of the PUD have received final approval.
C. A proposed change determined by the Zoning Administrator not to be minor shall be submitted as an amendment to the PUD and shall be processed in the same manner as the original PUD application.
SECTION 13D.5 CONDITIONS
A. Reasonable conditions may be required with the approval of a PUD, to the extent authorized by law, for the purpose of ensuring that public services and facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed land use, protecting the natural environment, ensuring compatibility with adjacent uses of land, and promoting the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner.
B. Conditions imposed shall be: designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare; reasonably related to the purposes affected by the PUD; necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made a part of the record of the approved PUD.
SECTION 13D.6 RECORDING OF AFFIDAVIT
The applicant shall record an affidavit acceptable to the township attorney with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds that contains the full legal description of the project site, specifies the date of completed PUD approval, specifies the description or identification number which the township has assigned to the PUD project, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the approval and declares that all improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD application and plan. If the PUD is amended, the applicant shall record an amended affidavit acceptable to the township attorney that contains all of the information described above, describes the amendment, specifies the date on which the amendment was approved, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the amendment approval and declares that the improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD, as amended. Finally, all deed restrictions and easements shall be duly filed with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds and copies of recorded documents filed with the zoning administrator. Copies of these recorded documents shall be given to the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of any land use permit.
SECTION 13D.7 PHASING
A. Phasing: Where a project is proposed for construction in phases, each phase, upon completion, shall be capable of standing on its own in terms of the presence of services, facilities, and open space, and shall contain the necessary components to ensure protection of natural resources and the health, safety, and welfare of the users of the PUD and the residents of the surrounding area.
B. For PUDs with both residential and nonresidential uses, the relative mix of uses and the scheduled completion of construction for each phase shall be disclosed and determined to be reasonable in the discretion of the Planning Commission. Uses within each phase shall meet the requirements of this Article.
SECTION 13D.8 TIME LIMIT
Each PUD shall be under substantial construction within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, except as noted in this Section. Substantial construction shall mean the commencement of construction of a building that is part of the approved PUD Plan or approved Final PUD Plan and for which a land use permit has been issued pursuant to Section 13D.11. Substantial construction does not mean merely grading or infrastructure.
A. The Planning Commission may grant one (1) extension of up to an additional one (1) year period, if the applicant applies for such extension prior to the date of the expiration of the PUD and provided that:
1. The applicant presents reasonable evidence that the development has encountered unforeseen difficulties beyond the control of the applicant; and
2. The PUD requirements and standards, including those of this Ordinance and the Master Plan, that are reasonably related to the development have not changed.
B. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, the date of approval of the Final PUD Plan if the optional preliminary PUD Plan and Final PUD Plan approach was used or prior to the expiration of an extension, the PUD approval shall be null and void.
C. If a PUD Plan has expired, the Planning Commission may rescind the PUD approval for the property after notice to the PUD applicant and providing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the rescission becomes effective.
SECTION 13D.9 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. The Planning Commission may, as a condition of PUD Plan approval, require that the applicant provide a performance guarantee, in the form of a cash bond, a bank letter of credit, or other security in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions attached to the PUD approval.
B. The amount of the bond or security to be submitted, if required, shall be equal to the total estimated cost for completing the required improvements, as approved.
SECTION 13D.10 ZBA JURISDICTION
The Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to accept appeals regarding a PUD.
SECTION 13D.11 PUD APPROVAL & LAND USE PERMIT
PUD approval is not a land use permit (also, called a zoning permit). If there are no conditions on the PUD approval and no performance guarantee requirement, then the Zoning Administrator shall issue the land use permit upon request of the applicant. If the PUD approval is subject to any conditions or if a performance guarantee has been required, then the Zoning Administrator shall not issue a land use permit until all conditions have been met and the performance guarantee has been provided to the Township. An approved PUD shall not be commenced until a land use permit has been issued.
ARTICLE XIII D
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
SECTION 13D.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE
A. The provisions of this Article establish the authority and standards for the submission, review, and approval of applications for Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is the intent of the Article to authorize the creation of PUDs as a Special Land Use (referred to as Conditional Land Uses in other sections of this Ordinance) for the purposes of:
1. Encouraging the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability;
2. Conserving natural resources, natural features, and energy;
3. Encouraging innovation in land use planning;
4. Providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, recreational, and open space opportunities for the people of Elmwood Township;
5. Bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties; and
6. Facilitating the implementation of the Township Master Plan.
B. The provisions of the Article are not intended as a device for circumventing the Zoning Ordinance or the planning upon which it is based. However, these PUD provisions are designed to permit a degree of flexibility not available through the conventional zoning districts, resulting in a substantially superior development for the community and the ultimate users of the development that could not be achieved otherwise. A PUD for a parcel of land is eligible for consideration if the zoning district in which the land is located authorizes a PUD application.
SECTION 13D.2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL
A. When making a decision regarding a PUD Plan, the Hearing Officer shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD application that complies with the following standards:
1. The land uses within a PUD shall comply with the uses designated for those lands in the applicable zoning district of the Township Zoning Ordinance where PUDs may be permitted.
2. The PUD shall meet the minimum land area requirements specified for each zoning district where PUDs may be permitted.
3. The lands comprising a PUD must be subject to unified ownership or control, so that the person or legal entity that is applying for PUD approval will have proprietary responsibility for the completion of the development, if approved. If multiple persons or legal entities have ownership interests in the land, all such persons or entities shall sign the PUD application or, if the application is signed by a prospective purchaser or optionee, written consent to the application by all owners of the land must be submitted with the application.
4. Except as provided in this section, water supply and sanitary sewage disposal in and for a PUD shall be accomplished only by public or community water supply and sanitary sewer systems, approved by the Leelanau County Health Department and other agencies having jurisdiction and in compliance with applicable Township ordinances. On-site septic systems and wells may be permitted for individual residential lots of one acre or more in areas that contain a single dwelling, if approved by the Leelanau County Health Department.
5. Motor vehicle access to the uses within a PUD shall be provided only from interior roads.
6. A PUD shall comply with all dimensional and use regulations of the zoning district in which the proposed PUD will be located, unless otherwise modified by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article.
7. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Township Master Plan.
8. The PUD Plan is consistent with the intent of this Article, as described in Section 13D.1, and also represents a development opportunity for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
9. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the intent and all of the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10. The PUD Plan and the uses proposed for the PUD must be compatible with the type, character and density of the existing and anticipated land uses on adjacent and nearby lands.
11. The proposed PUD must be compatible with the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
12. The proposed PUD does not contain uses or conditions of use that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
13. The proposed PUD preserves, in perpetuity, significant natural features, if any.
14. If a proposed PUD lies partially outside the jurisdictional boundary of the Township, then the minimum parcel size shall be based on the total size of the project and not just that portion within the Township.
15. The proposed PUD consolidates and maximizes useable open space.
16. Sufficient landscaping must be provided to insure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property and to create a pleasant pedestrian scale outdoor environment.
17. Safe, convenient and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and access to the development must be provided.
18. Important historical and architectural features, if any, within the development are to be preserved.
19. The PUD Plan also complies with the standards in Section 13C.7, entitled Site Plan Review.
SECTION 13D.3 APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Special Land Use – Hearing Officer -- Escrow. A PUD shall constitute a Special Land Use. A PUD application shall be considered by a Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer shall be appointed by the Township Board and may be appointed on a case-by-case basis or for such a period of time as the Township Board shall deem appropriate. The Hearing Officer shall be a public official when performing the duties required by this Ordinance. The applicant shall place funds in escrow with the Township in such amount as shall be determined by the Township Board to pay for the anticipated charges of the Hearing Officer and any consultants that the Hearing Officer determines are reasonably necessary to complete the duties imposed on the Hearing Officer by this Ordinance. The funds shall be placed in escrow on or before a PUD application is filed with the Township. Based on anticipated future charges, the Township may require the applicant to replenish the escrow fund to its original amount or to a lesser amount when the escrow fund reaches one-third or less of the original amount of the escrow fund. The failure of an applicant to make payments to the escrow fund shall render the PUD application incomplete and not ripe for further consideration. Any monies that remain in the pre-application conference escrow fund may be applied to this escrow fund.
B. Pre-application Conference. Prior to submitting an application for a PUD, the applicant shall meet with the Township Planner, Zoning Administrator and any staff and consultants that the Township deems appropriate. If a Hearing Officer has been appointed, the Hearing Officer may attend any pre-application conference. No statements of the Hearing Officer at a pre-application conference shall be construed as a position on the merits of the PUD application. No fee shall be required for this review, except that if the Township will use independent contractors as a Hearing Officer or for legal, planning or other consulting services related to any pre-application conference or as the Hearing Officer, the Township may require that the anticipated costs of those persons to review documents and attend any pre-application conference be paid to the Township in escrow prior to any such conference or conferences. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to determine the eligibility of a project for consideration as a PUD and to discuss PUD application procedures. Multiple pre-application conferences may be held if the potential applicant and Township agree. After the pre-application conference(s) have been completed, the Township representatives shall recommend an amount to be placed in escrow as described in Section 13D.3.A. During at least one
pre-application conference, the applicant shall informally describe the intended concept at the conference, with a sketch plan of the proposed PUD, as well as the following information:
1. The total number of acres in the project;
2. The number of residential units;
3. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses,
4. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
5. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
6. The number of acres to be preserved as open or recreational space; and,
7. All known natural resources and natural features to be preserved and a separate indication of those to be removed.
C. Variations. Variations to any requirements of the underlying zoning district may be authorized by the Hearing Officer as long as the approved plan with any variations complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A.
D. PUD Application. Following the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit a completed application form for PUD approval, an application fee, and five (5) copies of the materials and information shown below. These materials and information are also collectively called the PUD Plan. If the PUD is to be developed in phases, the PUD Plan shall show all phases. The PUD Plan shall contain or have with it:
1. An initial deposit of the required fees associated with a zoning escrow account for reimbursement to the Township for its expenses to review and consider the application.
2. A narrative statement together with supporting charts, maps and documents describing:
a. The total number of acres in the project;
b. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
c. The number of residential units;
d. A residential density calculation indicating the number of dwelling units per gross site area and a more specific residential density calculation by type of unit per gross site area associated with that particular unit type;
e. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses;
f. The number of acres to be preserved as common open or recreational space;
g. The objectives of the proposed PUD and how they relate to the intent and purpose of Planned Unit Development in Elmwood Township, as described in Section 13D.1;
h. The relationship of the proposed PUD to the Township Master Plan;
i. The implementation phases of the PUD and the approximate time frame for each phase;
j. Proposed utility services and how they are to be provided;
k. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be applied within the PUD;
l. Anticipated start and completion dates for construction;
m. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
n. Areas of the site containing significant natural features, including a breakdown of the approximate square feet/acres by type of significant natural feature. Significant natural features shall include: wetlands, flood plains, water bodies, woods, slopes in excess of 25%, active agricultural land, or other unique natural features as determined by a local, state or federal department or agency authorized by law to designate or classify a unique natural feature.
o. Anticipated phases of the PUD;
p. A specific schedule of the intended development and construction schedule details, including phasing and timing; and
q. Signatures of all parties having an interest in the property with a statement of the nature of their interest and intention to see the development of the property completed in accordance with the approval, if granted.
3. Maps shall be drawn at a conventional scale appropriate to the size and scale of the property and development, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. It shall contain the following:
a. The name of the PUD, the applicant’s name, the name and address of the firm or individual who prepared the Preliminary Development Plan, date, scale, and north arrow;
b. Property lines, dimensions of all property lines, and size of the PUD (and individual phases) in acres;
c. Existing zoning and land use of all abutting properties;
d. Significant natural features on the site, as specified in section 13D.3.C.2.n;
e. Existing buildings and structures on the site and that are located on abutting land within fifty (50) feet of a common property line;
f. Proposed uses, buildings and their locations;
g. Rights-of-way and pavement edges or curb lines of existing streets abutting the PUD;
h. Locations of proposed access drives, parking lots and streets within the PUD;
i. Proposed walkways or pedestrian paths;
j. Proposed method of providing water, sanitary sewer, and storm water drainage facilities;
k. Layout and typical dimensions of proposed lots;
l. A specific schedule of the general improvements to constitute a part of the development, including, without limitation, lighting, signs, the mechanisms designed to reduce noise, utilities, and visual screening features; and
m. Specification of the exterior building materials with respect to the structures proposed in the project.
4. The Hearing Officer may require additional information reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the review standards and other requirements applicable to a PUD or to determine the impacts of the proposed development. Such information may include, for example, soil reports, hydrological tests, traffic studies, wetland determinations or a market analysis. At any time during the PUD Plan review process, the Hearing Officer shall have the right to hire such experts as may be needed to provide independent studies regarding issues related to the PUD approval standards or to review documents or the reports of non-township experts. Fees and expenses related to any such experts shall be paid from the monies that have been paid to the Township in escrow.
E. PUD Hearing. Upon determining that the application and all required information are complete, the Hearing Officer shall conduct a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be in accordance with the notification procedures for Special Land Uses, as described in the Township Zoning Act or a successor statute. At the public hearing the Hearing Officer shall invite comments from the public with respect to the proposed PUD. The public hearing may be adjourned as needed to obtain public input, to allow for the gathering of additional factual information, to obtain legal advice or for other good cause. In addition, the Hearing Officer may, but is not required to seek an interpretation of any of the applicable provisions of this ordinance from the body to whom that interpretation authority has been granted by this Ordinance.
F. Hearing Officer Decision. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall determine whether the PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Hearing Officer may approve, deny, or approve with conditions the PUD Plan. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be in writing and shall include findings of fact regarding why the applicable PUD standards have or have not been met. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be a final decision after it is posted at the township hall. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant by first class mail on or before the posting of the decision at the township hall. Once the decision has become final, judicial review may be taken as authorized by law.
G. Optional Procedure - Separate Site Plan Consideration. An applicant may elect to have a PUD site plan considered after an initial PUD has been approved. In this two step process, the initial PUD shall be referenced as a Preliminary PUD Plan while the site plan shall be referenced as a Final PUD Plan. All other provisions of this Article shall apply to this section, except if there are any differences then the provisions of this section shall control. The escrow fund shall be sufficient to cover all costs incurred by the Township because of this optional procedure.
1. Preliminary PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An applicant must submit all information required in Section 13D except items 13D.2. - m, n and o.
b. Standards. All approval standards of this Article shall apply except the site plan standards referenced in Section 13D.2.14.
2. Final PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An application and 5 (five) copies of a Final PUD Plan meeting the requirements of Section 13D and in compliance with the approved PUD Preliminary PUD Plan must be filed not less than 30 days and not more than 1 year following approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. If not submitted within this period all previous approvals shall expire.
b. Standards. The approval standards in Section 13D.2.A shall apply and shall be substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan.
3. Preliminary and Final PUD Plan Processing. The Preliminary and Final Plan shall be processed by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article. However, a public hearing shall not be required for a PUD Final Plan.
4. Denial of Final PUD Plan. If the Final PUD Plan is denied because it is not substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan, then the applicant may elect to have the Township treat the rejected Final PUD Plan as a revised PUD Preliminary Plan. The revised PUD Preliminary Development Plan shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures of Sections 13.D.3.
SECTION 13D.4 CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PUD
Changes to an approved PUD shall be permitted only under the following circumstances.
A. The holder of an approved PUD Plan shall notify the Zoning Administrator, in writing, of any desired change to the approved PUD.
B. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon determining that the proposed revision(s) will not alter the basic design and character of the PUD, nor any specified conditions imposed as part of the original approval. Minor changes shall include the following:
1. Change in any building size, up to five percent (5%) in gross floor area.
2. Movement of buildings or other structure by no more than ten (10) feet.
3. Replacement of plant material specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size.
4. Changes in building materials to a comparable or higher quality.
5. Changes in floor plans which do not alter the character of the use.
6. Relocation of dumpster or signs.
7. Modification of parking up to ten (10) percent of the total parking area, provided there is no change in the approved driveway location(s).
8. Changes required or requested by the Township, the Leelanau County Road Commission, or other County, State, or Federal regulatory agency in order to conform to other laws or regulations.
9. Change of phases or sequence of phases, only if all phases of the PUD have received final approval.
C. A proposed change determined by the Zoning Administrator not to be minor shall be submitted as an amendment to the PUD and shall be processed in the same manner as the original PUD application.
SECTION 13D.5 CONDITIONS
A. Reasonable conditions may be required with the approval of a PUD, to the extent authorized by law, for the purpose of ensuring that public services and facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed land use, protecting the natural environment, ensuring compatibility with adjacent uses of land, and promoting the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner.
B. Conditions imposed shall be: designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare; reasonably related to the purposes affected by the PUD; necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made a part of the record of the approved PUD.
SECTION 13D.6 RECORDING OF AFFIDAVIT
The applicant shall record an affidavit acceptable to the township attorney with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds that contains the full legal description of the project site, specifies the date of completed PUD approval, specifies the description or identification number which the township has assigned to the PUD project, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the approval and declares that all improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD application and plan. If the PUD is amended, the applicant shall record an amended affidavit acceptable to the township attorney that contains all of the information described above, describes the amendment, specifies the date on which the amendment was approved, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the amendment approval and declares that the improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD, as amended. Finally, all deed restrictions and easements shall be duly filed with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds and copies of recorded documents filed with the zoning administrator. Copies of these recorded documents shall be given to the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of any land use permit.
SECTION 13D.7 PHASING
A. Phasing: Where a project is proposed for construction in phases, each phase, upon completion, shall be capable of standing on its own in terms of the presence of services, facilities, and open space, and shall contain the necessary components to ensure protection of natural resources and the health, safety, and welfare of the users of the PUD and the residents of the surrounding area.
B. For PUDs with both residential and nonresidential uses, the relative mix of uses and the scheduled completion of construction for each phase shall be disclosed and determined to be reasonable in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. Uses within each phase shall meet the requirements of this Article.
SECTION 13D.8 TIME LIMIT
Each PUD shall be under substantial construction within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, except as noted in this Section. Substantial construction shall mean the commencement of construction of a building that is part of the approved PUD Plan or approved Final PUD Plan and for which a land use permit has been issued pursuant to Section 13D.11. Substantial construction does not mean merely grading or infrastructure.
A. A Hearing Officer may grant one (1) extension of up to an additional one (1) year period, if the applicant applies for such extension prior to the date of the expiration of the PUD and provided that:
1. The applicant presents reasonable evidence that the development has encountered unforeseen difficulties beyond the control of the applicant; and
2. The PUD requirements and standards, including those of this Ordinance and the Master Plan, that are reasonably related to the development have not changed.
B. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, the date of approval of the Final PUD Plan if the optional preliminary PUD Plan and Final PUD Plan approach was used or prior to the expiration of an extension, the PUD approval shall be null and void.
C. If a PUD Plan has expired, a Hearing Officer may rescind the PUD approval for the property after notice to the PUD applicant and providing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the rescission becomes effective.
SECTION 13D.9 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. The Hearing Officer may, as a condition of PUD Plan approval, require that the applicant provide a performance guarantee, in the form of a cash bond, a bank letter of credit, or other security in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions attached to the PUD approval.
B. The amount of the bond or security to be submitted, if required, shall be equal to the total estimated cost for completing the required improvements, as approved.
SECTION 13D.10 ZBA JURISDICTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to accept appeals regarding a PUD.
SECTION 13D.11 PUD APPROVAL & LAND USE PERMIT
PUD approval is not a land use permit (also, called a zoning permit). If there are no conditions on the PUD approval and no performance guarantee requirement, then the Zoning Administrator shall issue the land use permit upon request of the applicant. If the PUD approval is subject to any conditions or if a performance guarantee has been required, then the Zoning Administrator shall not issue a land use permit until all conditions have been met and the performance guarantee has been provided to the Township. An approved PUD shall not be commenced until a land use permit has been issued.
A cigarette discarded on one of the buidling's access ramps probably led to the big fire at the Orchard Creek nursing home last week. Elmwood Fire Chief Ray Haring told the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees meeting Monday night that "we haven't found the cigarette butt," but that he was sure the fire began on the outside ramp. High winds spread the blaze to the structure's attic area, where it quickly grew.
The fire resulted in a total loss of the structure. No residents were injured thanks to a speedy evacuation and the rapid response from the fire department.
Regarding the alert given to residents of Orchard Creek, Cedar Creek Commons, and Woodwinds to boil their drinking water in the aftermath of the blaze--that danger has now passed, and the water supply at the three developments is safe to drink. [Updated 4/11/06]
The bad news has started at Glen Lake schools, where the layoffs of 11 teachers were recently announced. The district is trying to cope with a substantial anticipated budget shortfall. Details here.
The Empire Township Planning Commission acted Monday night to reject a proposed, massive development of up to 980 units on 338 acres near Empire.
The proposal now goes to the County Planning Commission, and then to the Empire Township Board of Trustees, who will have final say on the rezoning that would have made the project possible. Details at the Enterprise.
The massive Timber Shores development in Northport has received preliminary approval from the planning commission.
This Leelanau Enterprise article has the story.
State Senator Jason Allen intervened in favor of the developer of a Traverse City parking deck after receiving at least $32,000 in campaign contributions from the developer.
Just an interesting nugget in this Record-Eagle story about the controversial proposed parking deck in Traverse Cityk. Ka-ching!
Residents of the Orchard Creek Care Facility, Cedar Creek and Woodwinds developments in Elmwood Township are being urged to boil their water.
According to this story on the TV 7&4 site, fire officials are concerned that bacterial contamination may have occurred because of loss of pressure in the local water system during the fight against Thursday's fire at the Orchard Creek facility.
A public hearing will be held Monday at 7:30 pm on a request by a Grand Rapids developer to put up to 980 residential units on 338 acres near the village of Empire.
According to this Record-Eagle story, the project would require a rezoning of the Empire Orchards property agricultural to residential.
Smart Choices at Empire, a local group focused on land use issues in Empire and surrounding areas, sponsored a meeting Friday to inform residents about the potential rezoning and hear concerns about effects on the township and surrounding communities.
The rezoning hearing will be held Monday, 7:30pm at the Empire United Methodist Church. SmartChoices at Empire can be reached at EmpireInfo@aol.com, or contact Julie Hay: 231-941-6584 ext. 19 for more information.
The Elmwood Township Board of Trustees has unanimously approved a new Parks and Recreation Plan that clears the way for several important projects. Along with the associated grant applications, the new plan will enable a reworking of the township marina and park, as well as new uses for the DeYoung property being acquired by the Leelanau Conservancy. Although some opposition had been expected (Cathy Lautner, wife of trustee Terry Lautner, wrote a letter opposing the plan), in the event support was unanimous and the vote was greeted by a round of applause from the meeting audience. Contacted for comment, township supervisor Deri Smith spoke of a "brighter future" for Elmwood.
Leelanau lakes may still have ice on them, but caution is warranted, as this story from TV 7/4 warns. And that's not all. Grass fires are easy to start these days (see this and this) show.
Don't let your enthusiasm for spring carry you away!
The Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the developer of the contentious Meadows project in Elmwood Township must pay the Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth group for its costs in fighting a suit by the developer.
At stake was a suit filed in March 2004 by the Stewart Investment Group, the developer of The Meadows. In 2003, the Meadows project had been approved by the Elmwood Planning Commission, but approval by the Board of Trustees had not yet been granted on the advice of the township attorney. The Stewart group filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, which would have compelled the township to issue the permits for the project.
The township’s response to the initial suit was, as the Appeals Court judgment notes, largely confined to the assertion that the project had been passed by the Planning Commission. (The opinion can be read online here .) As a result, the defense of the suit was joined by Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth, which had a long history of opposition to the Meadows project and its predecessor Lincoln Meadows. (Full disclosure: Pei-shan and Steve Van Zoeren, publisher and editor respectively of The Leelanau Post, are founding members and long-time supporters of ECSG.)
Asked by the trial judge how its suit could be reconciled with the requirement that the project receive Board of Trustees approval, the developer’s lawyers claimed that a township official told them Board approval was unnecessary. Although questioned closely by the judge, both the developer and his lawyer declined to name this official, and in June 2004 the ECSG motion for summary disposition of the case was approved. In August 2004 ECSG was granted costs and fees by the trial judge.
The DEQ said Monday that laws making it easier for beachfront property owners to clear away weeds and aquatic plants from their beaches should be scrapped.
According to this story in the Duluth News Tribune, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality says that uprooting water plants along shorelines removes needed habitat for young game fish and also reduces the populations of invertebrates they feed on.
A state law passed in 2003 exempted beach grooming activities from wetland protection laws. The exemptions were sought especially by the owners of beachfront properties where falling water levels in the Great Lakes had exposed expanses of bottom lands formerly under water.
A Northport group opposed to the proposed sewer system there suffered a setback last week when a Leelanau judge dismissed their case.
According to this Record-Eagle article, 13th Circuit Court Judge Thomas Powers agreed with attorneys for the village of Northport and Leelanau Township that the question of whether or not the project was legally approved did not fall within the circuit court's jurisdiction. Opponents of the project promise that they will take the matter to the tax tribunal and then from there, if necessary, back to circuit court.
The Harleyville building (formerly the Lake States Insurance building) on M-22 just north of the Elmwood marina is being considered for conversion to condos.
According to this Record-Eagle article, a Dallas-based developer is considering purchasing the building and converting it to luxury condos tha might sell for as much as $500,000. Such a use would not be allowed by the site's current zoning, but the developer is seeking an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow the project.
The waterfront south of the building is home not only to the Elmwood marina, but also to a number of other projects either under way or being planned, including an expansion and redesign of the township park, the Great Lakes Children's Museum, and another possible marina. Township officials are asking how the proposed condo conversion would combine with these other changes. Elmwood supervisor Deri Smith is quoted in the article as asking "How does it fit in with our plans for the waterfront? If the use is changed, how does it impact the neighborhood?"
Those are good questions. Elmwood has some good momentum going along its M-22 waterfront, and should seek to preserve it.
The Binghan township Board of Trustees has finally approved the Leelanau Trail.
After having fought the trail since 1996, the Board finally voted last week to approve zoning that will legalize the Leelanau Trail, according to this Record-Eagle article.
In our opinion, the Trail is a wonderful resource for the community. It's good to see that those who opposed it are finally coming to accept it.
Septage costs, already under pressure to rise, may be further aggravated by a recent DEQ ruling.
The decision, reported in this Enterprise story, bans septage haulers from applying their loads to fields, at least in the winter. Instead, they must haul pump-outs to a waste-treatment plant in Grand Traverse or Benzie.
The Grand Traverse plant is already laying plans to compel all septage pumpers within a 15-mile radius to bring their loads to its plant, which must recoup the costs of its recent engineering problems.
A citizen group has begun organizing opposition to the proposed power plant on the West Bay.
Traverse City Light and Power has proposed a wood-burning plant on a site owned by the utility in Leelanau's Elmwood Township. According to the Record-Eagle, the group has established a website, www.dontplantithere.org, which is collecting signatures for a petition opposing the siting of a power plant on the site of the old coal dock and storage area along M-22.
By a 4-3 margin the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees voted on Monday against the re-appointments made by supervisor Derith Smith of Dave Darga, Chair of the township's advisory marina committee, and John Melichar, marina committee member. Darga and Melichar were both confirmed by the board in March of 2005 to single year terms.
In reversing themselves and voting against the re- appointments, the board majority bloc cited "the appearance of conflict of interest" as the overriding reason for removing Darga and Melichar from the committee. The appointments were supported by Trustees Howell and Walter. Walter, board representative to the marina committee, cited the hard work and professional expertise provided to the committee by both appointees. Trustee Howell questioned the conflict argument and stated that in his review of the proceedings of the marina committee he could not find an instance where a conflict of interest seemed to be at work.
While no specific complaints or examples of conflict of interest were cited, clerk Connie Preston spoke of "... grumblings..." and noted statements given by Judge Phillip Rodgers of the 13th circuit court in inveighing against Elmwood showing "the appearance of impropriety" in conducting its business. Although specific examples of written comments or examples of actual complaints were sought to illustrate problems with Darga and Melichar, Treasurer Deborah Street backed Preston up by noting that many of those that had commented on the alleged conflict did so anonymously, "They don't like to give (their) names," she told the board. After the board had voted Melichar's appointment down, supervisor Smith commented that, "Both Dave and John grew up in Elmwood Township, and they are expert in this field. Their help is an asset to the committee. No one has been excluded at the marina committee meetings. The contribution these two have made has been above and beyond..."
Darga owns a local marine service business and Melichar operates the gas dock at a private marina adjacent to the Elmwood's facility. Darga, as chair of the committee, has been central to the process of re-organizing marina operations and policies in the last year. The committee's work has been focused on instituting procedures that would end questionable practices followed in the past. Policies relative to parking, the marina waiting list, and fee collection practices have been re-examined and re-constituted . During last spring's board debate on the termination of Elmwood's previous harbormaster and deputy harbormaster, Darga provided the board with written findings detailing revenue shortfalls at the marina that resulted from his own examination of township records, marina operating receipts and fee schedules.
A consistent division among Elmwood board members has resulted in a series of 4-3 votes on marina issues. The same majority: Preston, Street, Lautner, and O'Rourke has voted against investigating previous marina practices, voted against validating supervisor Smith's action in dismissing the previous management, and voted to pay the terminated previous management $13,000 in return for a promise not to sue (no suit had been filed).
Judge Phillip Rodgers' original statement to the township regarding conflict of interest came as a part of a judgment against the township, and was made regarding the actions of John Gallagher (then township trustee and planning commission chair) and his involvement in a real estate deal he made with an applicant.
The federal Food and Drug Administration has warned sellers of cherry products not to make undocumented claims about their health benefits.
This Record-Eagle story describes how the FDA has cracked down on claims made by producers of cherry juice concentrate and other cherry products that they can cure everything from gout to cancer.
The FDA says that such claims have not been proven with scientific studies--that they are "anecdotal." Well, here's my anecdote. For years, I had pain in the joint of my right big toe. My Dad had it. My aunt had it. For all I know, everyone in my family had it. But once I started putting a couple of tablespoons of cherry juice concentrate in my morning apple cider (nutritious and delicious, as Soupy Sales used to say), the pain went away. Not got better-- went away altogether. I say the FDA needs some better studies.
The heads of Leelanau County's four school districts continue to search for ways around the budget woes looming on their horizons.
The discussion now seems to be focusing on "consolidation" versus "collaboration," according to this Leelanau Enterprise piece. Consolidation would mean an actual merger of the districts, while in the collaborative model the school districts would federate together to share some support functions while retaining their own individual governance and curricula.
One interesting fact mentioned by Leland Superintendent Mike Hartigan: of the 13 school districts in the state that do not levy the full 18 mills allowed by law, 3 are in Leelanau County. What does that say about the support for education in Leelanau County?
The Traverse City area has the highest gas prices in the state, according to the AAA. Gas prices averaged $2.47 a gallon here on Monday, as compared to a $2.43 per gallon statewide.
This Freep story doesn't give any background at all. I'd expect gas prices to be higher in our area than, say, downstate. But the highest in the state? Any readers who understand such things, please help out in the Comments section below.
Elmwood Township is making plans to link its waterfront with resources inland like the Leelanau Trail and the DeYoung farm property recently acquired by the Leelanau Conservancy.
This Record-Eagle article has the details on plans by Elmwood's parks and recreation committee to find ways to link Elmwood's revitalized waterfront with the DeYoung farm property, which includes nearly a mile of undeveloped shoreline on Cedar Lake, and which the Conservancy plans to open for hiking, fishing, and other activities.
What a great idea. Elmwood's waterfront is a wonderful resource, and one that is being transformed by the new park plan, the new Great Lakes Children's Museum, and the Maritime Heritage Alliance. But linking the waterfront via the Trail with all that the DeYoung property will have to offer--that's planning at its best.
A developer is exploring the possibility of installing as many as 50 or 60 windmills along the high ground in Centerville Township. The windmills, which would be used to generate "green power," would also generate income for the farmers on whose land they were placed.
According to this Leelanau Enterprise article, Noble Environmental Power of Bad Axe is exploring the possibility of building the towers, which would supply power to utilities in the region. Landowners might receive $8000 to $10000 per year per tower.
Update: Here's the Record-Eagle story on the same subject.
A local group has reached an agreement to buy and preserve Leland's historic Fishtown district. The Fishtown Preservation Society said that it has negotiated the purchase with the property's current owners, the Carlson family of Leland.
The group plans to preserve Fishtown as it is today, including the current structures and fishing operations, according to this Record-Eagle story.
That's good news. Fishtown is an irreplaceable link to an important part of Leelanau's past--and an important draw to visitors to our area.
Recall elections have been scheduled for two Leelanau County communities, the village of Northport and Elmwood township. The contests will appear on a May 2 ballot along with school elections.
In Elmwood, John Stanek, a former Elmwood trustee ousted in the 2004 election, filed the petition to recall current Supervisor Deri Smith. Noel Flohe, a former supervisor who was defeated by Smith in the same election gathered the most signatures.
In Northport, the recall turns around the question of a proposed municipal sewer system, says this piece in the Record-Eagle.
I'm not sure it's something to be proud of, but....a Leelanau County road called Psycho Path has won a nationwide contest for the strangest street name in the nation.
The Free Press reports in this article that private road in Solon township off M-72 has won a contest sponsored by www.carconnection.com to find the most bizarre name. Runners up included the intersection of Lonesome and Hardup Road in Albany, Ga., and the intersection of Clinton Drive and Fidelity Street in Houston.
The Grand Traverse area continues to experience rapid growth, and all signs point to more of the same.
According to this Record-Eagle article, growth in the region in 2005 is up over 12% from 2005, for a record total of more than $220 million dollars.
We can expect the trend to continue, says an expert quoted in the article. As the baby boomers begin to retire they will increasingly seek communities like ours, with a quality of life not to be found elsewhere.
Let's make sure we don't destroy it. Good planning can't be put in place when the wave is breaking over us; we have to do it now.
Traverse City Light and Power is considering building a wood-fired power plant on or near the old coal dock in Greilickville, according to this story in the Record-Eagle. The company has been in informal discussions with Elmwood officials.
A wood-burning plant burns cleaner than the coal-burning plants that supply much of TCLP's electricity, and can supply low-cost hot water to utility customers. Elmwood residents will want to know how exactly the plant will impact their community. Such concerns are often labelled as NIMBY (Not in my Backyard). But isn't our own backyard a good place to start being concerned?
Do we have a crisis on our hands? An article in the Enterprise reports on recent meetings of various county Boards of Education, all seeking ways to deal with a looming financial crisis in school budgets.
Deficits of $700,000 in Glen Lake and $500,000 in Suttons Bay are only the most spectacular examples of the financial woes that afflict all the peninsula's school districts in greater or lesser measure. At the heart of the problem are declining enrollments. And the solutions? There are no easy ones. Consolidation of personnel, programs, and facilities (like the shared supervisor experiment of Glen Lake and Suttons Bay) seem the only hope of avoiding deep and painful cuts in teacher staffing. It's a bad situation--the education of our children is an area where Leelanau needs to invest more, not less.
The US Supreme Court declined Tuesday to review a Michigan case affirming the right of people to walk on Great Lakes beaches. The action in effect reaffirms a Michigan Supreme Court decision that walkers can follow the waterline even on property that is privately owned.
This Detroit Free Press article quotes an attorney who supported the rights of beach walkers as saying that the action by the nation's highest court has the effect of securing the right affirmed by the Michigan justices last year in a 5-2 vote. The dissenting justices in the Michigan decision also recognized a right to walk along beachfront property, but only on the wet sand at the water's edge, while majority held the area between the water and the ordinary high water mark was open for strollers.
Kick off your shoes. Let's go find some Petoskey stones.
When the Suttons Bay and Glen Lake school districts came to an agreement last May to share a single supervisor, there was hope that the new arrangement would save the hard-pressed districts a little money.
Now they have to begin the process of finding a new solution, even as they face substantial deficits projected for the 2006-2007 school year, says this article in the Enterprise. The two boards had expected, based on statements made by Tom Harwood, that he planned to stay in the position for the long term. However the draw of a downstate position closer to his family proved irresistible.
Both districts, like others in our area as well, are in a tough position, facing substantial budget deficits in the years to come. The arrangement with Harwood was not a solution to the problem--the amount saved was relatively small compared to the total deficits, and it may be that a similar arrangement can be reached with a future candidate--but it doesn't help the districts to lose their joint supervisor just when they need to make some tough decisions.
The Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore has begun the process of drafting its new 20-year General Management Plan by hosting a well-attended open house. According to this story in the Enterprise, nearly 100 people turned out to learn about and comment on the plan.
One important point for many folks concerns those areas in the park that may be designated as "wilderness" areas. Many have been concerned that their access to areas so designated may be curtailed. According the Enterprise story, many were relieved to discover that such areas are by no means closed to recreational use, but only to snowmobiles and other mechanized forms of play. Let's hope the clarification allays some of the fears that short-circuited this process last time.
After 10 months of controversy, the Elmwood Township Board voted on Monday, February 12 to pay former Harbormaster Charles Lessard and former Deputy Harbormaster Richard Eldred $13,000 in return for their signatures to a release document in which they waived any right to seek redress from the Township or township officials in regard to their 2005 dismissals.
The controversy began when Elmwood Supervisor Derith Smith asked Lessard and Eldred to leave the marina as they returned to open the facility for the 2005 season. Smith cited a list of concerns and deficiencies that lead to her decision in the matter at the time, including a long list of fire code violations, the inadequate autumn closing of the facility, and discrepancies in the collection of winter storage fees along with other lapses in conforming with established marina policies.
Smith's actions were supported by township attorney Richard Edmonds of Young Graham and Elsenhimer, at a meeting of the board on April 11, 2005. Edmonds advised the board that, "... based on the Personnel Manual of the Township and the employee selection portion adopted in August of 1991, the Harbor Master is a seasonal employee. The season is defined by when the harbor opens and when it closes. The manual specifically states that a verbal or written offer for employment must never imply that employment is permanent or long-term or for a specific duration. For a seasonal employee to think that they are automatically employed from one year to the next is incorrect. ...everything was done legally." Lessard later contended that Elmwood was bound by a contract that had been negotiated at the time of his initial hiring in 1997 granting him permanent employment. Although a signed document or evidence of board authorization to execute the contract was not forthcoming, this contention seemed to raise questions that could not be answered on-the-spot by township council.
Lessard appeared at the May 23, 2005 township board meeting with his attorney asking to be reinstated to his post. In the interim a report detailing the results of an exhaustive examination of marina financial records made by concerned citizens and members of the township marina advisory board had been forwarded to board members for review. The observations made in the report added a dimension to the proceedings that was directly addressed by township attorney Jim Young. During that meeting he warned board members that "The township would be derelict in its duty if it did not investigate these allegations." And that "...another option could be to resolve this matter immediately, by passing a resolution to ratify the supervisor’s action." In other words, a simple vote by the board, a board that had serious allegations before it and advice from council that the supervisor had acted responsibly, would back up the supervisor's actions and put the matter to rest. This vote would not be forthcoming. Attorney Young went on to offer a simple choice: "If the board doesn’t think it is worth investigating, then avoid the procedural question and ratify the actions of the supervisor...If this came to court, I would be urging everyone to do what is best for the township as a whole and ratify the actions of the supervisor if you believe they were correct, or— have an investigation to determine what the facts are."
In the end the board voted to allow Lessard to continue his employment with the township, but not as Harbormaster. Mr. Lessard was to work on an hourly basis with the number of hours worked providing approximating the salary he earned in his previously held position. At the same time Young was instructed to inquire into the possibility of the township's insurance carrier initiating an investigation into issues touching on the conduct of business at the marina. This investigation was begun and proceeded until it was put on hold during the summer months. With no formal complaint forthcoming from Lessard, continuing the investigation could not be justified by the township's insurance carrier. That doesn't mean the investigation wouldn't be picked back up if a complaint was filed against the township, or that an investigation was deemed unnecessary. In any case the investigation would have been paid for by the township's insurance carrier.
As the summer progressed records show that Mr. Lessard had trouble reporting for scheduled working hours, or had difficulty scheduling shifts to work at the marina. Without worked hours to submit, Lessard's total pay for the season did not come close to equaling his previous salary (his agreed work week was to be up to 35hrs). After some period of time Lessard no longer reported for work.
In November Mr. Lessard delivered a letter to clerk Preston demanding payment equal to the amount his previously held position of Harbormaster would have paid less the wages he'd received over the summer months. Lessard felt he was owed "$8,000 or $9,000". The board voted to table discussion of letters from Chuck Lessard "until the marina investigation is discussed."
Lessard's claim made the township board agenda for a December 23, 2005 meeting. Prior to the meeting council Young communicated possible three options the board could take in dealing with continued demands by Lessard. The first was to do nothing, and simply wait to see if Lessard felt his position justified making a formal complaint. In this case the township's insurance carrier would once again activate its investigation into marina issues. With this option Elmwood would have paid nothing for a continued investigation. The second choice was for the board to initiate its own investigation through private sources, and to then address the matter with facts on hand. Young had acquired information on pursuing this course, and offered the board an option and a budget. The third suggested option was to pay Lessard, thus settling the matter at once.
In the end, none of these suggestions were adopted. A motion to authorize a private investigator to inquire into the activities of Lessard and Eldred (not to exceed $4,000 in cost) before negotiating with Lessard was defeated by a 4 to 3 vote with Street, Preston, Lautner, and O'Rourke opposed. A motion finally passed committing the board to posing questions to Lessard and Eldred in a public meeting, tabling any discussion until the allegations had been answered. Readers interested in reading the extensive meeting minutes generated by discussion on these questions should go to www.leelanaucounty.com/government0115.asp and read the extensive minutes from the December 23rd meeting.
Both attorney Young and the claimants had serious reservations with this approach. Lessard and Eldred (Eldred included, but having filed no written request with the township) with fielding questions from the board—asking for questions to be written in advance, and Young not wishing to commit township questions into writing. At the January 9, 2006 board meeting a further motion was made setting up a meeting between Lessard and Treasurer Street, Trustee Walter, and attorney Young to resolve issues. The resulting meeting took place on Friday February 10, and was attended not only by those identified in the motion, but by Dick Eldred and Mrs. Lessard.
Which brings us back to the motion and vote on last Monday's meeting. When the board reached the agenda item covering Lessard and Eldred's claim, Treasurer Street introduced a formal motion by reading a statement prepared by township council offering $13,000 to settle the dispute, $8,000 for Lessard and $5,000 for Eldred. The motion passed 4-3 with Street, Preston, Lautner, and O'Rourke in favor, and Smith, Walter, and Howell opposed—without discussion.
No questions were asked for the record by the township, and no questions were answered by either Lessard or Eldred. The report detailing irregular activities and deficiencies in the management of the marina is still on the table and a part of the public record.
| Permalink
Thomas Harwood, the dual superintendent of the Glen Lake and Suttons Bay school districts, is leaving to take a job in Grosse Point.
According to this Record-Eagle article, Harwood will probably finish out the year. The success of the experiment of having one super for both districts is still being evaluated, and we have to hope Harwood's departure will not complicate that process too much.
A controversial memo crucial to both the current recall drive against Elmwood township supervisor Deri Smith and to an anonymous letter-writing campaign aimed at Smith by her political opponents was repudiated by its source as early as last May, the Post has learned.
At stake is a confidential Suttons Bay village personnel report concerning Smith, who worked for the village from 2001-2004. The report was obtained under circumstances that remain unclear and circulated in an unsigned letter with no return address to Suttons Bay residents, which has led to a civil suit by Smith against Noel Flohe, John Stanek and Don Barrows of Elmwood township for defamation of character.
The mailing went out with a hand-written caption “Alledged [sic] Misuse of Funds.” It recently resurfaced again when handed out at public meetings and posted anonymously on the Elmwood Township Hall bulletin board. The memo also forms the basis of one of the charges laid against Smith in the recall campaign. Flohe, whom Smith defeated in the 2004 race for Elmwood supervisor; Stanek, who was voted off the Elmwood Board of Trustees in 2004; and Barrows are among the recall campaign’s chief organizers.
Now the Post has learned that Chuck Stewart, Suttons Bay Village Manager, informed the group in May 2005, before the letter was mailed, that the charges in the report had been investigated and found to have no basis. In an email to Smith dated May 19, 2005 Stewart said that “the group was told prior to their mailing, that the village confirmed there was no wrong doing by you during your tenure with the village.” He further states “It was specifically stated to them the concerns outlined in the letter was followed up and it was found that there was no criminal action on your part at anytime during your employment with the village.” Nevertheless, claims that Smith was involved in illegal activities formed a central element of both the anonymous letter and the current recall campaign.
Ms. Smith has filed a circuit court complaint demanding a retraction. Her attorney, Grant Parsons of Traverse City, states, “This is a highly unusual case. We have proof the anonymous group publicized something they had actual knowledge was false and defamatory. The usual defense – ‘I didn’t know I was doing wrong’ – won’t work.”
Correction: Deri Smith asked the group for a retraction in June 2005. It was only after they continued to circulate the material that she filed suit in July 2005.
A Park Service study on whether or not cougars roam the Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore has come up empty, researchers say. Reports of cougar sightings over the years prompted park officials to plant camera systems baited with road kill, according to this article in the Freep. Researchers also surveyed animal tracks in the snow and on beach dunes.
Some local residents still maintain that there are cougars in the park, says says this Record-Eagle piece in today's paper. Those who believe they have seen the big cats remain convinced, and some argue that the Park Service was looking in the wrong places for the cougars. They also point out that baited cameras have had a poor success rate in capturing images of cougars even in areas where they are known to roam.
Some Elmwood township citizens have been subjected to threats and other heavy-handed topics by circulators of a recall petition against Supervisor Deri Smith, according to reports to The Post. Speaking anonymously out of a fear of retaliation, residents have complained of circulators who camped out in their living rooms or driveways, refusing to leave even when asked to or when told that the residents support Smith.
These stories are a matter for concern if true. In our opinion, the right of recall is part of our democratic system. The process can be rough, even personal. But there is no place, here or elsewhere in our public life, for threats and attempted intimidation.
A last trace of Leelanau County's Manistee & Northeastern railroad is about to disappear from our area when the railroad cars on a siding near Lake Street in Traverse City are soon removed.
According to this Record-Eagle article, the city of Traverse City is acting to force the removal of an old engine and two cars once belonging to Leelanau Scenic Railway from a piece of track located near the Oryana Food Co-op. The Scenic Railway ran from Greilickville up to Northport along a rail bed that is now the Leelanau Trail. That stretch of track was the last remnant of the Manistee & Northeastern line that started in Manistee in 1887, reaching Traverse City five years later. Along its way, it travelled through Interlochen and Solon, a circuitous route designed to maximize the amount of old growth "big timber" that could be shipped to the mills in Manistee.
In time the line was extended to Suttons Bay and Northport along one arm, and through Cedar to Provement (present-day Lake Leelanau) along another. Among other things, it played an important role in providing access to and from Traverse City for the residents of Leelanau County's north and western hinterlands.
Photo credit: Garry Rosam c/o The Yardlimit
East Bay township's embattled treasurer, Deborah Watson, is seeking a change of venue for upcoming trial on neglect of duty charges. According to this Record-Eagle story, Watson believes she cannot get a fair trial in Grand Traverse County because of all the negative publicity surrounding her involvement in the East Bay township accounting scandals.
Watson's trial is an important one because it turns on the question of the fiduciary responsibility of township officials to monitor abuses like those charged to convicted East Bay clerk Jan Gee. As this earlier Record-Eagle piece describes, some area townships have learned a lesson from the East Bay fiasco and are considering how to improve their audit and other procedures to make sure it doesn't happen on their watch. Others (including, predictably, Elmwood township) have indicated that they have no intention of reforming their procedures--after all, they haven't had a disaster yet!
The Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore (SBNL) has announced the beginning of a process which will lead to new a new General Management Plan for the park, as well as to a new Wilderness Study and a new Environmental Impact Statement. The likely outcome will be a plan which defines where and how the park may be used for a host of activities, including hunting and snowmobiling.
The first phase of the process is defined as "scoping" -- defining the park's long-term goals, methods for achieving them, and issues to be addressed. Comments on the scoping phase are due by March 17, 2006. A planning newsletter with comment form has been posted on the web at this location, and an FAQ can be found here.
A series of open houses have also been planned for the following dates and locations:
Tuesday, February 14, 2006, 3:00-7:00 p.m.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Visitor Center Auditorium
9922 Front Street
Empire, MI 49630
Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 3:00-7:00 p.m.
Traverse Area District Library
610 Woodmere Avenue
Traverse City, MI 49686
Thursday, February 16, 2006, 3:00-7:00 p.m.
Benzonia Township Hall
1020 Michigan Avenue
Benzonia, MI 49616
For more information on Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, visit the park’s web site at http://www.nps.gov/slbe or call 231-326-5134.
According to our sources, late last week the DEQ approved a permit for the controversial condominium development and 14 slip marina at Leelanau Narrows. We are also told that the Lake Leelanau Association is asking an administrative law judge in Lansing to overturn the permit and stop the development. More on this story as it develops....
Update Jan 31 06: Here's an exchange of letters between NMEAC's Bob Marshall and the DEQ, bring us current:
From: "John Arevalo"
Date: January 31, 2006 3:40:56 PM GMT-05:00
To: "Robert Marshall"
Cc: "Robyn Schmidt"
Subject: Re: Fwd: The Narrows; DEQ File 03-45-0112-P, Leelanau County
As indicated on the DEQ website, all comments were to be directed to Ms. Robyn Schmidt, the staff person assigned to the file. Your comments were forwarded to her, but I will respond to you. The local paper said to contact me, which was incorrect. This matter is scheduled for a contested case hearing before a DEQ administrative law judge (ALJ) this spring. There is an intervenor; the Lake Leelanau Lake Assoc. (LLLA). Previously, the LLLA's attorney requested essentially what you did, and for the same reason. Our position, as put forth by the Dept. of Attorney General, who is representing us in the matter, is that the project poses significantly less environmental impact vs. the original proposal. A public hearing on the original proposal was held. The direct wetland impact with the modified proposal is 0.02 acre - with the impacts being elevated boardwalks, and a section of dock. The applicant offered to grant a conservation easement to the State, over the bulk of the wetland and the area offshore extending to the end of the finger piers. This would preclude any future expansion, dredging, filling, construction, etc. We have received scores of letters and emails from concerned citizens, and the state senator and representative for the area have made regular inquiries. Concerns about navigation have been raised by many, and both the applicant and the LLLA have expert witnesses who are retired county sheriff marine safety patrol officers (who have very different opinions about whether this project will adversely impact navigation). We posted the proposed contested case settlement on the DEQ website for 30 days to allow for addtional comment. The applicant did opt to cosign the draft permit, and the modified permit was issued for this project a few days ago. If he choses to construct anything, he does so at his own risk, as DEQ Director Steven Chester is the final agency decision maker in this process. Director Chester will review the proposal for decision that is rendered by the ALJ. That process will take several months. Thank you for contacting me.
Robert Marshall
Dear Mr. Arevalo,
On January 12 I sent the appended message to you re the Narrows
permit in Lake Leelanau.
I was aware that the permit was in process a that time but made an
argument that it should have been reopened since its revision was so
radical that it was, in effect, a new process.
I have heard nothing from you in this regard and would like to know
what is being done about our request for another hearing on this matter.
We appreciate your attention to this matter.
Yours,
Robert E. Marshall, Secretary
Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Marshall
Date: January 12, 2006 2:52:11 PM GMT-05:00
To: John Arevalo
Cc: Robyn Schmidt
Subject: The Narrows; DEQ File 03-45-0112-P, Leelanau County
Mr. John Arevalo
Supervisor, Land and Water Management Division
MDEQ
2100 West M-32
Gaylord, MI 49735-9282
Re: DEQ File 03-45-0112-P, Leelanau County
Dear Mr. Arevalo,
I write to inform you that the Northern Michigan
Environmental Action Council (NMEAC) has met and reviewed the DEQ
petition and proposed permit for the Leelanau Narrows dock and
boardwalk system and hereby make some comments on the developments.
First, we believe that this permit should not be
allowed. It is a fairly radical modification of the earlier
rejected permit and without further review would move in a
direction opposed by the DNR, US Fish and Wildlife, the Lake
Association and Marine Officers and Deputies. It would,
furthermore, in creating such an excess of dockages in such a
congested portion of the waterway, create environmental damage and
danger to navigational safety. It would also set a precedent
calling into question the ordinances of various Townships regarding
Keyholing which would not allow such a usage.
Secondly, we believe that this permit can hardly be
called a modification of the earlier rejected permit. It is
essentially a new permit which has not had a public review. We
formally request that you hold a local public hearing of this
design and hear the comments of the residents and concerned
citizens of the area.
We do not take a position on the condominium
developments and will do so as required in the course of the
hearings of the Planning Commission and their permit process.
We write this in the interest of the preservation and
protection of the Narrows and in the interest of an orderly review
process for this important part of our Lands and Waters.
Yours truly,
Robert Marshall, Secretary
Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council
P.O. Box 1166
Traverse City, MI 49685-1166
Cc: Ms. Robyn Schmidt, DEQ, LWMD
Cadillac District Office,
120 W. Chapin St.
Cadillac, MI 49601
John Arevalo
Cadillac District Supervisor
Land and Water Management Division
Gaylord Phone: 989-705-3450
Fax: 989-731-6181
Cadillac Phone: 231-775-3960x6360
Fax:231-775-1511
UPDATE 2/1/06: The Record-Eagle has a story on this today.
681 signatures were filed Wednesday with the Leelanau County Clerk's office for the recall of Elmwood Supervisor Deri Smith. Mr. John Stanek, who narrowly escaped recall himself two years ago, filed for the recall in late November, 2005.
There are eighteen circulators for the petitions - Reuben Barnes (brother of Elmwood Clerk Connie Preston), Donald Barrows, Carla Burns, Douglas A Cole, Noel J Flohe (former Elmwood Supervisor, who was defeated by Smith in the 2004 election), Stanley Kouchnerkavich, Theodore Kramer, Joseph Krellwitz (son of Elmwood Treasurer Debbie Street, a political foe of Smith's), Catheryn Lautner (wife of Elmwood Trustee Terry Lautner, another foe of Smith's), Elna Lessard (wife of fired Harbor Master Chuck Lessard), Joan Maule, John McGuffin, Robert Roxburgh, Thomas A Rumbach (former member of the Elmwood Township Planning Commission under the Flohe administration), Debra Rushton, Nancy Scott, Fred Sorenson (Elmwood Township developer and political contributor to the former board) and Stanek. Ms. Smith can challenge the validity of the signatures in writing by 5:00 pm on February 24th, 2006. If enough signatures are verified, the recall election will be scheduled for May.
There were three reasons listed on the recall petition for Ms. Smith.
One count challenges Ms. Smith for filing a lawsuit last year against a group who circulated an anonymous document containing false allegations against her. The case will not go on trial until late this year.
A second count claimed by the petitioners claims the wrongful dismissal of the ex-harbor master of the Elmwood township Marina. An insurance company investigation into the case was terminated by Smith's opponents on the Elmwood Board, some of whom are parties to the recall. Finally, a third count blames Ms. Smith for a botched TimberLee road project that was begun several years before she took office.
One resident, who declined to be named, told the Post that one of the circulators sat in her living room for two hours and refused to leave unless she signed the petition (she didn't sign).
County Clerk Michelle Crocker stated that she has not begun the validation process.
A fugutive teen who sparked a county-wide manhut was picked up by the police on Saturday, according to this Record-Eagle story. Dean Michael Kinsley is accused of breaking into a Cleveland Township home late Thursday and holding a woman and her daughter at gunpoint.
Leelanau County Sheriff deputies are searching for an armed teen who fled after an alleged home invasion, says this recent Record-Eagle story.
According to Leelanau County Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf, Dean Michael Kinske, 18, of Lake Leelanau broke into a Cleveland Township home late Thursday night, attempting to abduct one its residents, a classmate of Kinske's at Lenand High. The apparent motive was robbery. Kinske fled when confronted by the girl's mother.
Kinske is armed. He is driving a red 1999 Jeep Cherokee Sport with Marine stickers on the rear window and bumper. Anyone with information should contact the sheriff's office at 231-256-8800.
Continue reading "Search is on for armed teen in home abduction attempt" »
Unanimous votes of approval by the Elmwood Board of Trustees, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Committee are forwarding plans make major improvements to Elmwood's beach park, marina, and M-22 corridor. Funding will be sought from State, local, and private institutional partnerships.
Further public input on plan elements will be solicited through ongoing discussion in Elmwood Township.
Recall proponents have filed over 700 signatures to recall the entire Northport Village Council and president, says the Enterprise.
At stake is an $11 million sewer project. Opponents charge the costs of the new system will outweigh its benefits.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has asked a federal court to rule that five American Indian tribes, including the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa, can no longer rely on an 1836 treaty to set their own rules for hunting and fishing, says this story from CNN.
Mike Cox claims that the Treaty of Washington, allowing the tribes to set their own game and fish regulations on certain lands and waters in the northwestern Lower Peninsula and eastern Upper Peninsula, no longer applies, citing language in the treaty that says the tribes' rights only apply until "the land is required for settlement."
"The tribes are convinced these rights have survived, and they will vigorously oppose" the state's attempt to override them, says Traverse City lawyer William Rastetter.
Suttons Bay author Lynne Rae Perkins has won the prestigious Newbery Medal for children's literature for her novel Criss Cross, says the Freep.
The novel consists of a series of poems, vignettes and illustrations about a group of small-town teenagers. The award committee chair, Barbara Barstow, said of the book "Writing in a wry, omniscient third-person narrative voice, Perkins deftly captures the tentativeness and incompleteness of adolescence," .
That's an honor for Perkins--and for Leelanau County. Congratulations!
The Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore has decided to try again to create a new General Management Plan (GMP), according to
this article in the Enterprise.
A previous effort to create a plan was cut short in 2002 when Republican officials, spurred by local pressure groups, brought the process to a halt. The issue of treating more park land as "wilderness" was especially controversial to local groups concerned about preserving vehicular and other access to park lands.
The new process will take about three years and will allow ample opportunities for public input, according Park Superintendent Dusty Shultz.
The Park is a great resource for Leelanau County (and the rest of the world), and will behoove all of us to be involved in this process, and to make sure it is not driven by special interest groups with a narrow agenda.
The Record-Eagle has a story this morning about the sentencing of East Bay Township's former supervisor Joseph Bartko for willful neglect of duty by a public officer. The charges stemmed from Bartko's cultivation of "an atmosphere in East Bay Township that allowed unlawful expenditures to go undetected," as current supervisor Glen Lile said in a statement to the court.
It's a case that should be reflected upon by members of other township governments who have either neglected or in some cases (like Elmwood) actively worked to prevent transparency and accountibility in township operations.
A Cedar man who maintained that he was exempt from taxation, that the tax laws were unconstitutional, and that he was not a citizen of the United States has received a sentence of 27 months in prison. At one point in 2002, Mr. Ealy notified the IRS that his name had been copyrighted and that if the IRS used his name for any purpose, the IRS would be subject to a $500,000 fee. These arguments, theories, and schemes have been floating around in far-right/survivalist circles for some time now; but apparently the IRS has not signed on.
We don't normally cover Benzie County, but this controversy over access the Crystal Lake reported in the Record-Eagle today raises important questions concerning Leelanau and its interior lakes.
As we pointed out in an earlier posts here and here, as lakefront property becomes more valuable the question of who gets access how will increasingly be on our plates.
Elmers Crane & Dozer is suing the developers of the Brewery Creek development on M-22 in Elmwood township, according to this Record-Eagle story. The project, which was built on the site of the former Classic Building Supplies and filled wetlands next to Brewery Creek, is largely vacant. Elmer's is asking for $216,746 for work done between April 2003 and October 2004.
The project has been controversial from its inception, with concerns over the wetlands fill and variances granted by the Elmwood township Planning Commission and Board of Trustees. More to come on this story and its background...
The parents of convicted killer Mathew O'Non were arraigned Friday in 86th District Court in Leland Friday on counts that they conspired to commit perjury and obstruct justice before their son's trial last March.
Faye Robyn O'Non, 51, and Nicholas O'Non, 57, were charged with numerous felony counts. Prosecutors charged that they lied to authorities about the facts surrounding Matthew O'Non's murder of two drug dealers, and that they attempted to influence witnesses to testify falsely in his trial.
O'Non is serving life in prison for the murders. The Record-Eagle has details.
For the second time this week, firefighters responded to a fire at a house under construction on East Sugar Bush Lane off M22 near Leland. Although the first fire caused relatively little damage, according to TV7&4, this time the house was fully engulfed in flames.
According to this Record-Eagle story, the parents of convicted killer Matthew O'Non will surrender Friday on charges they conspired to obstruct the investigation into murder charges against their son.
Matthew O'Non was convicted earlier this year on charges he murdered and buried two drug dealers at his family's Bass Lake cottage in Leelanau County. Now his parents are being charged with having failed to tell police about the crime and with having travelled to Arizona to try to influence the testimony of Matthew's friend, Justin Judd.
Seems like the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
The Elmwood Township Board of Trustees deadlocked in a 3 to 3 vote here Monday on a motion to hire LSL and Associates of Grand Rapids to work with the township planning commission on completing a draft zoning ordinance for the township. The vote blocked progress at the planning commission level in the development of the township's long awaited zoning ordinance.
Township planners, staff and the public reacted with surprise at the vote citing LSL's demonstrated ability to deal with the complex issues facing the township, the extensive discussion and preparation at the planning commission that went into defining the firm's bid, and the fact that prior to Monday's meeting no concerns regarding the arrangement had been voiced by Board members.
In comments made before voting against the initiative Township Treasurer Deborah Street stated that she wished to "Become more educated" in regard to the bid proposal. Street was joined in voting against the measure by Clerk Connie Preston and Trustee Terry Lautner. In defeating the measure the board offered no formal instructions to the planning commission as to how to proceed, or made any specific request of LSL for further clarification or action.
LSL representative Val Lasdens had outlined a 9 to 12 month process designed to secure public input and to finalize code elements structured to support the goals and objectives of the Elmwood Master Plan in a complete zoning ordinance.
Earlier in the meeting the Board had voted unanimously to contract with LSL and township attorney Jim Young of Young, Graham, and Elsenheimer to produce amendments to the current zoning ordinance's Planned Unit Development and Resort Commercial District sections in order to clarify requirements and definitions, and to unify the sections with Master Plan statements.
The Elmwood Planning Commission had been working on devising a route toward the completion of the proposed zoning ordinance, and to develop the scope of LSL's input in that process since September of last year.
During the same period LSL and the township's attorney were engaged to facilitate the review of the massive "Glacier Bay" water park for the township. LSL had also completed an exhaustive technical review of the proposed ordinance draft.
Clerk Preston, Treasurer Street, Trustee Lautner, and Trustee O'Rourke (who was absent for Monday's session) were members of the Board that previously voted to adopt a zoning ordinance that was strongly rejected by township voters in 2003 by referendum. After that rejection the township engaged consultant Gourdie-Fraser and Associates to work with the planning commission in an "at will" capacity which included working as required on zoning ordinance revisions. In the following period Gourdie-Fraser billed over $45,000 for those services. No final ordinance had been produced when after the 2004 elections the planning commission was dissolved due to other irregularities. Since being reconstituted in the spring of 2005 the Elmwood Planning commission has stated its focus to be the completion of work on the ordinance as its highest priority.
East Bay Township Clerk Jan Gee was found guilty Wednesday on nine counts of embezzlement, says the Record-Eagle.
Gee enriched herself by over $60,000 by abusing her control of the township payroll system. Prosecutors have further charged negligence on the part of the part of the Township Supervisor and Treasurer for failing to note Gee's activities.
The point for Leelanau and for township governments around the region is that the casual, personal style of governance that still prevails at most township halls will not do anymore. The sort of sloppy or non-existent accounting checks and balances seen at the Elmwood Township Marina would never pass muster in a real business, and it will be a miracle if the system is not abused like the one in East Bay. Some townships around the area are looking at their procedures to fix them. Others, like Elmwood, have decided to ignore the problem.
Connect the dots: Our congressman, Dave Camp, received over $35,000 from corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients. Dave Camp voted with disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay 92% of the time.
What's the connection? The DeLay / Abramoff money machine, where Abramoff and his clients fed money to those who toed the DeLay line. And who did that line benefit? The clients of Abramoff and the other K Street lobbyists who financed the DeLay political machine. It was the perfect system while it worked!
A delay has been granted in the hearing to determine whether East Bay Township Treasurer Debora Watson will stand trial. According to this Record-Eagle story, the 86th District Court has granted a 30-day adjournment of Watson's preliminary hearing. She is charged willfully neglecting her duty in the matter of the embezzlement of funds which has been charged to East Bay Clerk Jan Gee; former Township Supervisor Joseph Bartko has also been charged with misconduct in office for his involvement in the affair.
The Record-Eagle story linked to above has a good list of links giving the history of the case. It's an instructive one for Leelanau County, where few townships have instituted the kinds of safeguards experts say are needed to prevent embezzlement and other abuses.
According to this Record-Eagle story Leelanau's US Congressman, Dave Camp, received some $35,000 from tribal clients of convicted felon and lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Only $500 came directly from Abramoff, while the balance came from the Saginaw Chippewa tribe, based in Camp's home district, as well tribes in Mississippi and Louisiana who had also retained the controversial lobbyist.
Camp represents a district which includes the Saginaw Chippewas, and so it is entirely appropriate that he be an advocate for their interests, and that they support him with campaign contributions. It's interesting, though, that he also received contributions from four other tribes who also were Abramoff clients. Insofar as he advocates for the Saginaw Chippewas, Camp is probably also advocating for the interest of Native American tribes across the country, and so it's not surprising that some might choose to support him. But it would be interesting to know how many tribes not associated with Abramoff also made donations to Camp? How would you find that out?
Update 1/8/06 10:47am: I just found this comment on blog devoted to New Jersey politics, wondering why Dave Camp voted an extraordinary 92% of the time with disgraced Majority Leader Tom DeLay, even though he received only a little over in $200 in direct contributions from the DeLay money machine. The blogger wonders if there is some other correlation of corporate or PAC contributions that would account for Camp's loyalty. I think we just found it. This is how the Abramoff / DeLay money machine worked: lobbyist contributions were steered via Abramoff to DeLay allies, who would then reliably vote the interests of the K Street lobbyists DeLay who DeLay served. I suspect a little digging would uncover similar connections. This was the DeLay innovation: in the past, lobbyists gave money directly to legislators whose votes they wanted to influence. DeLay and Abramoff in effect created a giant slush fund, which was channeled to legislators who reliably supported the DeLay agenda, voting for whatever DeLay told them to support. Kind of like a mutual fund.
There may a taste of things to come in Leelanau County in the controversy unfolding to our south at Crystal Lake over a boat launch for public use. According to this Record-Eagle story, some local residents are gearing up to oppose a boat launch proposed by the DNR, while others are preparing to support it.
It's a story that echoes the current confusion over "keyholing" in Leland township, and in our opinion it's an issue we will be seeing more of in the years to come.
According to this story in the Leelanau Enterprise, a flaw in the drafting of the Leland Township zoning ordinance may allow unrestricted development of the lakeshore within the township.
At stake is the practice of "keyholing," whereby property owners are deeded rights to use a lakeshore beach even though they do not have full ownership of the associated property. The ordinance provision was originally intended to deal with those cases where a parcel may be split by a road, with beachfront on one side and an associated residence on the other. But it appears that the Leland ordinance could allow for the construction of multi-family condos, etc on the lakeshore with unlimited docks and boats.
As beachfront property becomes ever more valuable in Leelanau, we will find ourselves dealing with ever greater pressures to exploit it to the maximum, including keyholing schemes.
The latest twist in the saga of East Bay township hall shenanigans: on New Year's Day, when the township offices were closed, embattled township Clerk Jan Gee slipped into the township hall to remove her desk and belongings, according to this Record-Eagle article. Gee's trial on charges that she embezzled money from the township is scheduled to begin next week.
Why does this matter for Leelanau County? Because the underlying issues at East Bay--lack of auditing and internal controls--are endemic in our townships as well. Of course most people who work in township government in Leelanau and elsewhere are honest, hardworking individuals--but procedures should be in place to guarantee that abuses like those in East Bay do not take place. That's not mistrusting the people who staff township government; it's just running local government according to business-like and well-established procedures.
The Grand Traverse Herald's review of news from 100 years ago is always worth reading. This week's hightlight: "Charles Stafford, bartender for Brookmeyer's saloon, who was arrested last week for selling liquor to a drunken man, waived examination Tuesday before Judge William Umlor. "
An article in the Dec 29 Enterprise gives some idea of the growth pressures on our area. Benzie and Grand Traverse counties rank second and third among Michigan's 83 counties in terms of trowth. Antrim, with a growth rate of 6% over the last four years, comes in sixth. And Leelanau, up 5%, is also among the fastest growing counties in the state.
As the economy Up North becomes more diverse we can only expect these trends to continue and perhaps accelerate. Fortunately, we still have time to act to put sensible, well-designed policies in place to keep our area from being overwhelmed by uncontrolled growth, as have been so many other communities. That tired old cliche that growth is coming and can't be stopped is true enough as far as it goes. But thoughtful smart growth policies--if implemented before the storm hits, not when it's howling around our ears--can go a long way toward securing our quality of life. We have something irreplacable here. Let's not let it be lost by poor planning and carelessness.
The Record-Eagle has published a story with more detail on the racial discrimination suit filed on behalf of a third-grader in the Frankfort area (see our earlier post on the topic below.) According to the child's mother, the girl was subjected to racial taunts and slurs, and made to use a separate bathroom so that the other students would "feel more comfortable." The girl's mother also says that she tried to work the problem out with school authorities but had no success and so was forced to file suit.
Certainly there are two sides to every story, and in the coming weeks I'm sure we'll hear that of the school district. As I said below, I hope the story is inaccurate. But if this really happened and without an outcry at the time, it shows that attitudes about these matters in Northern Michigan are not as enlightened as we might like to believe.
Leelanau Country is still far from Tom's River, New Jersey--thank goodness!--but the basic dynamics are there in both places: developers flush with cash and local officials willing to bend the rules for them. The result? The needs and wishes of local residents are disregarded, and sprawling development destroys the quality of life. Take a look at
this disturbing portrayal in the NY Times of a situation very different from--but also uncomfortably similar to--Leelanau County.
According to this story from a Grand Rapids TV station, the parents of a Frankfort-area schoolgirl have filed suit charging that their daughter was forced to use a separate bathroom at school because she was black. Supposedly, this made the other students "feel more comfortable." I hope the story isn't accurate. If it is, it shows what a long way we still have to come in Northern Michigan.
A missing teen from Illinois may be in the area.
The DEQ has issued an initial permit to construct 14 controversial slips at the Narrows on Lake Leelanau, and local residents are organizing to stop the move. The residents are asking citizens to speak up before the public comment period ends on Jan 26, and threaten legal action if it's approved. The Record-Eagle has the story:
Traverse City Record-Eagle - Home Page
Prominent local attorney Jim Olson has some reservations about the so-called Annex 2001 agreement concerning diversion of Great Lakes water (see South Bend Tribune for details.) Olson charges that an exception in the agreement to allow extraction of groundwater for bottled water threatens to undermine the intent of the agreement. Although the measure has been agreed to by Michigan Governor Grandholm and other state and provincial leaders, it must still be ratified by the state legislature before becoming law.
So what if the news is 100 years old? The Grand Traverse Herald's roundup of the news from 1905 is always worth reading.
Apparently the Glacier Bay people are not the only people planning a new waterpark for Traverse City.
The Record-Eagle has a story about the new planner hired by Grand Traverse County. Sounds like a capable individual, which is a good thing for everyone in the area.
Leelanau County and Elmwood Township are blessed with incredible land, shoreline and water resources. We all know it is our responsibility to preserve, maintain and develop in a responsible way these riches we have inherited from previous generations and which we wish to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
The final act of the outgoing 2000-2004 Elmwood board was to cut the supervisor’s salary by $5,000.00. This was the beginning of a campaign, which has continued since then, by Noel Flohe (the supervisor Deri Smith replaced) and his cronies to reverse the results of the 2004 election and force Deri Smith from office.
2006 township budget is up for public hearing on Monday night. Last month, the Board Personnel Committee (Connie Preston, Debbie Street, Deri Smith and Paul Walter) worked together and decided to recommend that Deri’s salary be brought up to par with those of Clerk Preston and Treasurer Street. However, in the final hour, Debbie Street has submitted a letter in the board’s meeting packet coming out against reinstating Deri Smith’s salary. At the same time, a group led by Flohe and John Stanek (like Flohe, booted out of office in 2000) is circulating a form letter arguing against restoring her salary. People who turn out to oppose Smith’s salary don’t seem to mind anybody else that are getting 39% to 18% salary increases on the budget.
The Elmwood Township Marina has been much in the news lately, but many people are unclear about the background to this story. Here’s a short summary.
Back in 2001, a new Board of Trustees took over in Elmwood Township. This was the Board that engaged in long series of costly and unsuccessful lawsuits against citizens over development issues and that was very nearly recalled in 2004. When the marina season started in April 2001, Trustee John Stanek asked the board to give his friend Mr. Dick Eldred a job as the Deputy Harbor Master to assist Harbor Master Chuck Lessard. According to township hiring rules, such jobs should be posted and published; however Eldred was given the job without any such formalities.
The Elmwood Township Planning Commission met last night in the latest of its sessions devoted to the massive Glacier Bay waterpark proposed for the "Milliken property" on M-72. Planning Commissioners discussed a number of issues. Most important: whether or not the project meets the standards of the Elmwood Township Zoning Ordinance or Master Plan.
A long-standing deadlock at the Elmwood Township Hall was broken last night when the Board voted to approve two new Commissioners: Mark Luegers and Don Schubert. That brings the Planning Commission to a full complement of seven members, following several months where the PC was at four, then at five members.
A public hearing on the proposed Glacier Bay waterpark was held by the Elmwood Township Planning Commission on Oct. 18, with a standing room-only crowd. After a long (some thought too long) presentation by the developers and their engineers, the public was able to have its say.
The controversy over the management of the Elmwood Township marina continues. The report on an aborted insurance company investigation into the Marina was short but provided some startling pieces of evidence the Marina was badly mismanaged from 2001-2004. According to marina users interviewed for the investigation:
Continue reading "Marina Controversy Continues to Roil Township" »
