Last week there was a joint meeting of the Cheboygan County
Commissioners and the Cheboygan County Planning Commission. There was some
frank discussion about the Cheboygan County Master Plan, zoning, and land uses.
Will it lead to a future that better serves Cheboygan County?
The County Commissioners and Planning Staff, a diminishing number
of people, shared a letter with the Planning Commission members. Someone had
stamped the envelopes in red, “Confidential”. The County’s legal counsel allegedly
penned the confidential letter. No one offered to read the letter to the public
in attendance. In the realm of land use
and planning by our local government, secrecy should not exist. Master Plans
and zoning decisions, approvals or denials; cannot be tried in some secret
court. The future use of your land must not be determined with deliberations,
decisions, and a planning ordinance rooted in closed sessions or driven by hidden
agendas.
Planning and zoning is a process as exciting as watching
paint dry. When it works, and it has not worked well here, it can still be an unpopular
subject. Griswold Mountain and Heritage Cove were contentious projects and
Meijer has now become contentious. The applicant withdrew the proposal for the
Griswold Mountain racetrack. The Planning Commission approved the Heritage Cove
project. The Heritage Cove neighbors subsequently filed suit and the case goes
to a State Court of Appeals in January 2018.
The Planning Commission approved
the Meijer project in February of 2015. Inverness Township Supervisor Neuman promised
to work diligently to deliver the needed water in a timely manner. Meijer was
prepared to pay all the up-front costs for the needed waterline. With the
Meijer store already approved at the county level, the Inverness Township Board
has effectively placed a moratorium on commercial growth within the south M-27
corridor. There are five people on that board and despite recent comments by
one or two members, they have effectively worked together to stall the Meijer
water issue for almost three years.
The Planning and Enabling Act allows a development process
effectively used in other communities to plan, research, and approve or not
approve complex projects: the Planned Unit Development (PUD). Cheboygan County
has an existing PUD ordinance on the books. Quietly acknowledged as tried once
and failed, the Planning Commission and County Commissioners have spent several
years kicking the PUD ball around. A deflated ball may have worked for the
Patriots, but Cheboygan deserves better. A PUD should be a methodical series of
well-defined steps starting with pre-application conference(s), determinations
of suitability, and importantly getting all of the needed infrastructure;
water, sewer, and roads; approved before proceeding to final approvals.
The PUD process should not be a short cut. I am amazed when
Cheboygan County ignores the better practices proven with the economic growth
and development our neighbors have enjoyed. There is no need to reinvent the
wheel. Emmet County states, “on the basis of findings at the Public Hearing,
specific site conditions, community land use plans, and the applicant's intent
in establishing nonresidential uses, the Planning Commission may reject a PUD
District as not being in accord with the land use goals of the community,
and/or as not being appropriate for the specific property under consideration.
In a PUD District, the County Board of Commissioners may reject the PUD plan
for the reasons stated in this paragraph. “No Preliminary or Final PUD shall be
approved unless the proposed project, the plan for the project and the land
uses(s) are mutually agreeable to the applicant, the municipality and County of
Emmet.”
The “Confidential” letter? Cheboygan’s legal counsel is allegedly
“suggesting that this decision be made by the Planning Commission based on
standards and the Board of Commissioners would not be involved. This option
would also provide for a much more streamlined decision-making process.
“The Zoning Enabling Act allows a procedure
for approval of a PUD by the Planning Commission only. Legal counsel has
expressed concern with the additional exposure to risk by requiring approval of
a PUD by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners.” I question the true reasoning for the legal argument.
We need to adopt a proven PUD process that protects our existing land uses and
values while encouraging economic growth.
