News from Elmwood

Public hearing on the new Elmwood Zoning Ordinance: 7 pm, May 21, Elmwood Township Hall!

Elmwood "reinterprets" zoning in favor of controversial Lincoln Meadows development

Close vote opens agricultural district to high-density development

ELMWOOD TOWNSHIP (May 7, 2002) - In an apparent move to circumvent public involvement, Elmwood Township officials late Monday night voted to reinterpret a long-standing zoning ordinance to allow residential development at densities ten times higher than previously permitted -- as high as one unit per acre in the township's Agriculture/Open Space District.

In its March 11 opinion on the second lawsuit brought by residents against the township, the 13th District Circuit Court ordered the township to either review the project within the guidelines of its clustered housing provisions or to amend its zoning ordinance with a legislative process allowing for public involvement.

The township did neither. What it did do was facilitate developers' interests by simply "reinterpreting" zoning requirements that had previously limited sprawl. Stewart Investment Group, the developers of Lincoln Meadows, and the township planner asked the Elmwood Township Zoning Board of Appeals to clarify zoning ordinance language that, by recent interpretations, limited the development to 13 units on 138 acres. With the change made by the board in the developer's favor, the same parcel will now qualify for up to 138 units.

The township is caving to pressure from big developers, say residents who are trying to encourage the township to follow existing laws designed to limit inappropriate development and preserve the rural character of the township, which is on Traverse City's northwest border. The ruling effectively discards years of citizen-based planning.

"This disregard for the zoning process makes the entire township vulnerable the same fate that has consumed so much of lower Michigan," said Jim Ganter, a former 9-year member of the township's planning commission who attended Monday's meeting. "Zoning is designed to guide development for the benefit of all, not to be an Enron-like gift to land speculators, special interests and their friends. The township is responsible to us, not them."

Ed Roy, a specially contracted attorney for the township on the Lincoln Meadows case, advised the zoning board along with regular township attorney Mike Kronk in a marathon board session. He provided example language and offered advice on techniques crafted to safeguard the township from future litigation. He also facilitated an examination into the original intentions of the questioned ordinance language. The attorneys guided the proceedings while reminding board members that the actual decisions were the board's own to make.

Attorney Roy recently represented developers of Bahia Vista, another controversial development in the township's agricultural district; his relationship in this new case draws criticism from citizens groups for an apparent conflict of interest since he has previously represented developers' interests on township zoning issues.

The pivotal vote of the five-person board was 3-2 in favor of the developers' requested interpretations. Those voting for language favorable to the developers of Lincoln Meadows claimed that it was intention of the 1997 Township Board of Trustees to allow for the more intense use. They admitted that necessary documentation was not completed to allow higher densities.

Dissenters argued that the township had intended not higher density development, but the preservation of rural character in the district.

"It's hard to believe that our township officials can claim to 'clarify' a zoning ordinance that clearly goes against the township's master plan," said Erik Saxon, a member of Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth, a local group of more than 200 residents. "By following the master plan the public would have had a more meaningful voice, and the greats cost to the community would have been avoided."

The Lincoln Meadows development has been stymied for nearly two years with legal action, ever since the first township approvals were ruled void due to an apparent conflict of interest that was revealed between the developer and the planning commission chairman, John Gallagher. The second set of approvals was judged illegal by the Circuit Court after a review showed that township officials disregarded applicable sections of their zoning ordinance.

Trustee James O'Rourke, planning commission board member Jeff Aprill and ZBA chairman John Riegling voted in favor of the developers while board secretary Jon Sutton and Gary Bergstrom sided with the lower density interpretation.