Home > Links > Contact Us

Since the May 22nd public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance, another Freedom of Information Act request has been forwarded to the township requesting copies of all invoices from and checks to any person or entity performing services for Whitewater Township to draft the proposed zoning ordinance from January 2005 to the present (FOIA dated 6/8/07). Those invoices and checks have been received and provide the following information.

The firm of Mansfield & Associates (formerly known as Wells Mansfield), has been paid $21,195. Let us be very specific about this number. It DOES NOT include amounts paid to the Mansfield firm for any other services provided to Whitewater Township, including consulting on zoning litigation or training/mentoring of the township zoning administrator.

The law firm of Derman & Turkelson has been paid $16,877.50 for services they have performed with respect to the proposed zoning ordinance. Once again, this amount only includes their work on the proposed zoning ordinance and NOT any other matter for which they are consulted by the Whitewater Township Board.

The township's contract with Mansfield, entered into in October of 2005, states that the Mansfield firm will be paid "$60.00 per hour, not to exceed the amount of $6,600." More than 3 times this amount has been paid thus far. The contract calls for a written amendment for any change in scope of work or fees. The township has been asked via FOIA request to provide a copy of any amendment, resolution, motion, or other document which will show where the board authorized the expenditure of more than $6,600 under this contract. To date, no such document has been received.

Additionally, there has been a complete "changing of the guard" at the Planning Commission level in Whitewater Township. Joe Anderson, Chairman of the Planning Commission and member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, resigned his long-held position on May 21st, the day before the township board public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance. At almost the same time, Dan Mach, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, tendered his resignation as Vice Chair, although reportedly plans to serve out his term as a member. Brad Boals likewise tendered his resignation as Secretary of the Planning Commission at the June meeting but reportedly plans to serve out his term. New officers were elected at the June meeting.

Coincidence that all officers of the Planning Commission recently resigned their offices, if not their position? Where are they when it comes time to defend the document they voted unanimously on January 9th to send on to the township board despite a township hall full of people objecting to various sections in the ordinance? A simple oversight that more than 3 times the contract amount has been spent for the services of a planner to write the proposed zoning ordinance, not to mention what has been paid in attorney fees?

Property owners in Whitewater Township should rightfully be very concerned about this proposed zoning ordinance, first of all from the standpoint of how it will affect their property rights, and secondly why so much money has been spent on it.

The next board action on the proposed zoning ordinance is scheduled for August 8th, at which time a joint meeting will be held between the Township Board and Planning Commission. This has been scheduled at the request of the Planning Commission. Please mark your calendars and plan to attend.

In March of 2007, a Freedom of Information Act request was made to Whitewater Township requesting copies of contracts entered into for purposes of planning and zoning services for the township, as well as a request for how much had been spent by the township for those services. The following comments were made by myself at the May 22nd public hearing using information taken from documents received from Whitewater Township in response to the FOIA request.

In October of 2005, a year and a half ago, this township board entered into a contract with Wells Mansfield, Inc., a planning firm in Traverse City, for certain services with respect to this proposed zoning ordinancne.

The services to be performed were: "Complete the zoning ordinance text including updating articles, sections, and definitions currently in the zoning ordinance as well as the editing of the document."

Also, a representative of Wells Manfield would attend a number of meetings including: A kickoff meeting with the planning commission and/or board, three (3) planning commission meetings to inform the PC on the progress of the zoning ordinance and to answer questions related to the document, one (1) meeting with Grand Traverse County Planning Commission or subcommittee for review and comments on the document, two (2) township board meetings to inform the township board on the progress of the zoning ordinance and to answer any questions related to the document, one (1) public hearing on the zoning ordinance to help field questions for the planning commission, one (1) public hearing on the zoning ordinance to help field qustions for the township board.

The fee for these services? "Wells Mansfield will provide the above-stated scope of services at an hourly rate of $60 an hour, not to exceed the amount of $6,600."

Taking a look at what has been paid to Wells Mansfield for the period of November of 2005 through March of 2007 shows they have been paid $18,960, more than double the $6,600 stated in the contract.

A document which was written by a Traverse City planning firm and which is very much supported by folks in downtown Traverse City because it will discourage business and retail development here and keep us driving to Traverse City for practically everything we need. With the state of the economy, particularly the price of gas, it's time we had some retail development and other conveniences a little closer to home.

Next, we have gotten a document which will further infringe on our individual property rights. We've all worked hard to acquire our property. We pay more and more taxes on it every year. The proposed zoning ordinance will place more restrictions on what we can do with our property.

Next, in the case of the numerous nonconforming lots, structures and uses which will be created by this proposed ordinance, it will limit any expansions or changes that can be made, if they can be made at all, which will in turn devalue our property to a potential buyer. And we all know that the township will not be stepping up to compensate us for the devaluation of our property brought on by this proposed ordinance.

I don't believe this fancy new zoning ordinance, pricey as it was, will in any way be beneficial for the residents or property owners of Whitewater Township and would urge this board not to adopt it, in whole or in part.

I reside at 6447 Baggs Road, Williamsburg, Michigan, which is my family centennial farm. After 100 years of our family living on and farming this property, it is now threatened by Whitewater Township’s proposed zoning ordinance.

I encourage the electorate of Whitewater Township to completely reject the proposed zoning ordinance as submitted by the Whitewater Township Planning Commission and its chairman.

The township does need a comprehensive zoning plan (it currently has one) solicited by the planning commission from the people. Whitewater Township and the village of Williamsburg have long passed the centennial observation with our rural values and country setting intact. We need to stay current with the local economic growth as well as the rural lifestyle that we all enjoy in Whitewater Township. The “Anderson Plan” will impose zoning restrictions on home-based businesses, family farms, farm markets, roadside stands, and their signs, while allowing real estate and election signs. There are many other new provisions in this proposed ordinance. This plan even regulates the shelters for school students waiting for their school bus, all while exempting the Township from their own rules. THIS IS A FAILURE!

The township has a functioning established commercial district, yet the proposed “Anderson Plan” mandates everything from exterior architectural elements, and increases both required building setback and minimum lot size requirements (and maybe signs), which will make many of the existing commercial businesses nonconforming and/or non compliant. Do we need zoning so restrictive as to eliminate creative design, or just some common sense to allow for regulated commercial economic growth?

The “Anderson Plan” also creates the "Scenic Road Corridor Overlay District" requiring a “500 foot green belt area on both North and South sides of M-72,” dictating what can be done with some 31.4 acres of my private land. Speaking on behalf of my family, zoning away the use of private land amounts to little more than a "taking of land.” This is wrong and we the people of Whitewater Township MUST SAY NO!

At the January 9, 2007 planning commission public hearing regarding this proposed ordinance, the planning commission chairman refused to acknowledge important concerns expressed to overly restrictive key elements of the proposed ordinance, stating that nothing on the list of concerns "should derail the train." Why do we need a head-on train wreck like the one that happened at Dead Man's Crossing (Skegemog Point Road) on July 19, 1910? WE, the people of Whitewater Township, need to demand our elected officials to REMOVE the engineer of this train, replacing him with someone who truly has our best interest in mind. Again, I encourage the Whitewater Township Board to “just say no” to the “Anderson Plan” and support the current zoning, which is more in step with our rural farm community.

There is a public meeting scheduled on May 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM at Mill Creek School regarding all the above issues contained in the proposed zoning ordinance. I urge all residents of Whitewater Township to attend this meeting and support the views of the Whitewater Watch Group, a gathering of concerned citizens, for sensible zoning in Whitewater Township without the Anderson Factor.

On May 22, 2007, at 7:00 pm., Mill Creek Elementary School, the Whitewater Township Board will hold a public hearing on the new proposed zoning ordinance. At whitewaterwatch.com, you can review the existing and proposed ordinances. The entire zoning ordinance for Whitewater Township has been rewritten. The township board was asked in February of 2007 by 436 petition signers to have a comparison document drafted in order that the public could more easily compare each of these documents. At the next regular meeting after presentation of the signatures, the board ignored the petition request, instead choosing to mail to all taxpayers a document entitled Common Misconceptions. This document did little to inform the public about sweeping changes in the new ordinance. Numerous properties throughout the township are proposed to be rezoned or reclassified. If your property is in one of these new districts, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed ordinance.

If your property is within 500 feet of M-72 between Cook Road and Baggs Road, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the new Scenic Road Corridor Overlay District in the proposed zoning ordinance.

If your property is within 100 feet of Williamsburg Road, Broomhead Road, Guernsey Lake Road, Supply Road, Diagonal Road, Dead Horse Road, Farrell Road, Hursh Road, Sand Lakes Road, North Branch Road, Perch Lake Road, Strombolis Road, or North Muncie Lake Road, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the new Scenic Road Corridor Overlay District in the proposed zoning ordinance.

If your property is within 150 feet of the Boardman River or within 100 feet of Williamsburg Creek, Battle Creek, Bissell Creek, Tobeco Creek, Follet Creek, or Mabel Creek, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the new River Corridor Overlay District in the proposed zoning ordinance.

Numerous uses, structures and lots will become nonconforming with the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance. The following language appears on page 47 of the proposed ordinance. "It is the intent of this ordinance to permit the continuation of legal non-conforming lots, structures, or uses until they are removed or discontinued for a specified period of time. However, it is not intended to encourage their survival. These regulations are intended to encourage the elimination of nonconformities wherever possible. It is the further intent of this ordinance that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, and shall not be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same zoning district." Review the proposed ordinance to see whether your uses, structures or lots will become nonconforming. In other words, if it's legal now, but it won't be with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, it will become "nonconforming," and YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed ordinance.

If you have less than 20 acres of active farmland and wish to sell produce, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed zoning ordinance.

If you wish to place a sign somewhere other than on your property (directional signs to garage sales, yard sales, open houses), YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed zoning ordinance.

If you have a home occupation, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed zoning ordinance.

If you will need a special use permit and/or site plan review for your project, YOU WILL BE AFFECTED by the proposed ordinance.

The Whitewater Township Planning Commission has included in the proposed ordinance a section entitled Municipal Exemption, "exempting the township from any and all provisions and regulations of this ordinance . . . ." When asked why this section is included in the ordinance, township attorney Mike Turkelson replied that it is "codifying existing case law." When asked to supply this case law for independent review, the township has refused to provide it. Twelve (12) blank pages have been "reserved" in the proposed ordinance for future regulations. After reading the 192 pages of the proposed ordinance, you will wonder what else could possibly be left to regulate. The proposed ordinance is nothing more than an infringement on individual property rights and a method by which to crush entrepreneurial and creative spirit and mandate overly restrictive design standards for every piece of property and structure in the township. Beyond the infringement on property rights, what is it going to cost to enforce these new regulations? Will we next be told we need to hire an assistant zoning administrator to help with enforcement? We need less government in Whitewater Township, not more.

Please take an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance, compare it to the existing ordinance, and attend the public hearing on May 22nd to voice your opinion!

MARCH 20, 2007 UPDATE: It was formally stated to the township board at their regular meeting that they had been presented with 436 petition signatures requesting a comparison document be created detailing each new provision in the proposed zoning ordinance and that the public be given further time to review the comparison document and comment upon it. The township board was asked to send the proposed zoning ordinance back to the Planning Commission so that the comparison document could be created and made available to the public.

The township board did not discuss the petition requests. Supervisor Lake was the only township official to refer to it briefly, stating it was a "very valid petition." The township instead voted to mail to each taxpayer a document said to be created by zoning administrator Vanessa Gembarski entitled "Common Misconceptions and FAQs." The board then proceeded to set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for May 22nd. The board said that after receiving this mailing, residents would have time to stop by the township offices, review the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance, and ask any questions they had of the person who will be interpreting the ordinance, i.e., the zoning administrator.

The entire zoning ordinance has been reshuffled and rewritten and cannot be compared article by article, section by section. The purpose of the requested comparison document was to zero in on what is changing from the existing document to the proposed document. Only then can residents formulate informed questions and/or responses to the proposed changes. Surely the Planning Commission is capable of assembling such a comparison document; they drafted the proposed zoning ordinance.

Our elected township officials have chosen to deliberately ignore the requests of 436 township residents and/or taxpayers. We should all be questioning why this is happening and why our elected officials are not listening to a sizable number of their constituents. Once a new ordinance is passed, it will be the law of the land in Whitewater Township and may significantly affect what you can or cannot do on your property. Get informed! Get involved! Don't allow your property rights to be infringed upon!

FEBRUARY 2007: The Grand Traverse County Planning Commission reviews the Whitewater Township Proposed Zoning Ordinance and submits its report to the township board. NOTE: The County Planning Commission only reviews a township's zoning ordinance to make sure it does not conflict with the county master plan. The County Planning Commission DOES NOT review the ordinance from the standpoint of whether it unnecessarily infringes on individual property rights.

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2007: A citizen petition was circulated requesting the township board to defer adoption of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance until three specific actions had taken place. (See link to full text of petition.) Signatures of 436 residents, business owners, and property owners of Whitewater Township were gathered and presented to the township board.

JANUARY 9, 2007: Planning Commission Public Hearing. Significant concerns were raised by those in attendance regarding various sections of the proposed ZO. After the PC chairperson commented that nothing voiced should "derail the train" and that any concerns raised could be dealt with via amendment AFTER ADOPTION of the ZO (in other words, after it becomes law), the PC voted to send the proposed ordinance on to the township board without alteration.

DECEMBER 22, 2006: Legal notice published in the Traverse City Record-Eagle of the 01/09/07 public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.

On February 8, Jerry Dobek, Marvin Radtke, Matt Skeels and I met to review the Whitewater Township Zoning Ordinance. We were joined by Rob Larrea of Mansfield & Associates, planning consultant to Whitewater Township. Whitewater Township adopted its first zoning ordinance in 1972. A new zoning ordinance was developed in the late 1990’s. This current draft amends the existing ordinance.

During the meeting, the Committee offered minor corrections and recommendations to the proposed text. While there are some needed significant changes (listed below), the Committee felt it was more important that the Township adopt the draft ordinance and put into effect an improved zoning ordinance. The changes could be made at a later time. Therefore, the Committee recommends approval of the zoning ordinance with the following recommendations:

1. The sexually-oriented business section of the zoning ordinance does not comply with current legal requirements for managing such uses. The Committee recommends following the Blair Township ordinance for sexually-oriented businesses. Due to the recent establishment of a sexually-oriented business in Blair Township, it meets the test for current requirements of such uses.

2. The landfill section of the zoning ordinance is unenforceable pursuant to the state statute for solid waste management. Pursuant to Section Sec. 11538(8) of Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended, “An ordinance, law, rule, regulation, policy, or practice of a municipality, county, or governmental authority created by statute, which prohibits or regulates the location or development of a solid waste disposal area, and which is not part of or not consistent with the approved solid waste management plan for the county, shall be considered in conflict with this part and shall not be enforceable.”

3. In several locations, the zoning ordinance references planning guidelines and standards and in some cases specific guidebooks and manuals. Zoning ordinances typically consist of non- discretionary language. While the guidelines provide the basis for where the zoning ordinance allows for discretion, the Committee recommends the Township consider moving the guidelines to the Township’s Master Plan or developing a separate guidebook. This would be a more appropriate location for such standards. The newly released New Designs for Growth Development Guidebook should be considered as an appropriate, region-based guidebook for use by the Township.

4. Requiring access management along M-72 is important to manage growth in the Township. The Township may consider increasing the required width for parcels along M-72 to ensure adequate and safe ingress and egress.

The Committee review only consisted of the proposed zoning ordinance text. The proposed zoning map includes two primary changes:

1. Expand the Rural Residential district across the middle width of the Township. At a minimum lot size of one acre, Rural Residential is the same density as Rural Agriculture; however it does allow additional uses. This change is to accommodate the area within the Township receiving the bulk of development.

2. Eliminate the majority of increased higher residential density around the streams and lakes. The remaining amount of higher residential density classified as Lake Residential is located in a limited amount around Elk Lake, Truax Lake, and Island Lake.

The new zoning map better reflects the development pattern identified in the Whitewater Township Master Plan. Since the map is also part of the ordinance, staff would recommend approving both the zoning ordinance text and map.

Awareness is the key to a healthy local government.

Disclaimer: This web site is not part of the Whitewater Townships web site.

Laws Contact us

Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web	www.whitewaterwatch.com

Awareness is the key to a healthy local government.

Disclaimer: This web site is not part of the Whitewater Townships web site.

Laws Contact us

To have rights, you have to be involved