Questions and Answers on the New Elmwood Zoning Ordinance

What's the problem with this ordinance?
This new ordinance is about one thing and one thing only: increasing the permissible density in the Ag Open Space district from 1 unit per 10 acres as it stands today, to almost 1 unit per acre--a ten-fold increase. If it is implemented, in the short term we can expect to see a rash of Lincoln Meadows-style developments in Elmwood Township. In the long-term, we can expect to see a huge jump in the Township's population to something more closely resembling that of Garfield, with completely unplanned-for consequences for traffic, services, taxes and the quality of life in the Township.

Demographic trends--the constant in-flow of new residents to the area, and the increasing difficulty that farmers are finding in making a go of agriculture--ensure that development will come to Elmwood. Don't we just have to accept those changes?
Of course change is coming to Elmwood--and fast. That's why it is essential to stop at this critical moment and make sure that we have a zoning ordinance that can deal with these kinds of challenges. Failing that, the existing ordinance has certain strong protections which, despite our township government's best efforts to weaken them, still offer better protections than the proposed new zoning ordinance.

What are the numbers?
When last counted in 2000, Elmwood was home to 5,287 residents. The new zoning ordinance would open the door to 8,300 new homes, roughly 17,000 new residents, and at least 10,000 additional vehicles in the Ag Open Space district alone. Under the terms of the current ordinance, the basic one home per ten acre density in the Ag Open Space district would be maintained, allowing a maximum possible buildout of 830 new homes (about 1,700 new residents and 1000 vehicles). Of course not every parcel will be developed immediately and not every parcel will be developed to its maximum allowable density. But the new ordinance would expand the supply of building sites dramatically, increasing the rate of Elmwood's population growth, traffic problems, and requests for services. Are we even prepared to deal with the growth that will come if we don't change, and do we really want to accelerate that growth by implementing this new policy?

What about the danger of so-called "low-density sprawl"? Without high-density developments, won't the Township disappear into hundreds of ten-acre parcels?
Permitting large-scale developments with one acre zoning is a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to treat. We would trade a relatively simple problem (too many driveways?) for a much worse one (a huge and unplanned-for increase in the township's population). There are better solutions.

The Township has tried to cast this as a contest between advocates of clustered housing and its opponents. Do you really oppose clustered housing?
Not at all. All serious students of planning, land use, and development agree that clustering is a powerful tool for preserving open space and preventing sprawl. The Sensible Plan for Elmwood Township, presented to the Planning Commission last year, presented detailed schedules allowing for a variety of different kinds of clustered housing, depending on their location and other factors. A variety of other creative suggestions have been made by planners and even Township staff. But none of these alternatives suggested the high densities the new ordinance would allow.

How about the argument that the ten-acre lots will eat up all the agricultural land, forcing the farmers out of business?
Nothing could more certainly guarantee the speedy disappearance of agriculture from Elmwood Township than a market in subdivision-style developments, which is what this ordinance would create.

We all agree that clustered housing helps to preserve open space, and that if there is to be large-scale development, we would prefer that it be clustered. Don't developers need to be offered an incentive in the form of a density bonus in order for them to find clustered developments a good investment?
As we have seen in the cases of the Lincoln Meadows and Bahia Vista projects, developers are eager to build at densities like 1 unit per 2.5 acres. There is no reason to believe that they could not be persuaded to accept even lower densities. In fact, quality developments often fetch a premium.

What about the case of someone who wants to break off a small piece of land so a child can build a house, or raise a little cash? Are they going to be forced to sell a ten-acre parcel each time?
There are lots of ways to accommodate this without changing the permissible density of the entire Ag Open Space district -- a number were suggested in various earlier drafts of the zoning ordinance.

What about the farmers? Don't they deserve to cash out at the end of road?
Of course anyone is entitled to make the best return they can on their investments. However, inherent in the very notion of zoning is the recognition that our neighbors are affected by what we do with our property -- for example, you can't build a facility to burn tires or store a hazardous material like fireworks in most zoning districts, because of the costs to your neighbors and the ill-effects on the community as a whole. Any time you make a zoning rule, someone's particular short-term interest may be harmed. But if that rule will protect the larger community from harm, then we have to seriously consider it. The legitimate rights of property owners must be respected--but so must those of the larger community in which they live and act.

What should happen with the new zoning ordinance?
Let's acknowledge that this zoning ordinance would have serious, unplanned consequences for the Township. Let's acknowledge further that it was made without regard for the public's input and does not reflect the wishes of a majority of the Township's residents By bringing this ordinance to a referendum vote, we can restart the process and create a zoning ordinance that truly plans for Elmwood's future.

How does Elmwood fit into the bigger picture? What are other townships doing, what is the state doing on these land-use and zoning issues?
Sprawl and land use are major bipartisan concerns at all levels throughout the state. In Lansing, former governor John Engler and governor Jennifer Granholm both see sprawl as a drain on the economy. The new Elmwood ordinance, in all aspects, ignores years of bipartisan research that shows how these kinds of ordinances, and the developments they encourage, benefit a select few while raising taxes for the majority. Locally, Acme and most other townships are working hard to restructure and create plans that benefit all residents.