George's Eagle Harbor Web An unofficial source of Eagle Harbor, Michigan news, views and information. Keweenaw Development Some Harbor Web Editor Views On Keweenaw Development Issues

For subsequent correspondence, please go to Opinion 2

Township ZoningLetter to Township Board Regarding Proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance

February 9, 2007

Eagle Harbor Township Board
3231 Center Street
Eagle Harbor, MI 49950

RE: Proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance and Interim Zoning Map

Dear Board Members,

There are many positive things to say for the Interim Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map that have been recommended to you by the Township Planning Commission.

The recommended ordinance effectively deals with much of the ambiguity that has plagued the Keweenaw County ordinance in effect in the township since 1975; providing more precise definition and explanation of zoning terms and procedures and more clearly setting forth the implementation processes and decision standards. It greatly strengthens our capacity to protect important natural and cultural resources, adequately address many long term troublesome situations such as home occupations and accessory storage buildings, and puts in place provisions for managing newly emerging land uses such as wind power farms and expanding recreational facilities.

The recommended interim ordinance and map is an impressive body of work, potentially of great value to the township as it pursues the Eagle Harbor Township development objectives and strategies set forth in the Blueprint For Tomorrow comprehensive plan, and a great credit to the planning commission members and township officials who have worked so thoughtfully and diligently in its preparation.

Challenges remain, not the least of which is to establish broad community understanding and support for effective zoning regulation as a means to achieve our collective well being as a community. It will not be easy – we are not embarking with a clean slate. We have a collection of structures and uses often not established with much regard to the niceties of such things as setbacks or compliance with someone else’s idea of appropriate use. Much of our existing development pattern, especially in the platted town, is an accident of history, most of it happily so, but reflective of times when housing, work and community service needs were different as were attitudes about such things as resource protection. Even of late, due in part to the County’s heretofore lasses-faire approach to zoning, many of us have operated pretty much without restraint, other than self-imposed, as we developed and used our properties.

Fortunately, as our town officials you have demonstrated considerable awareness of this challenge, trying to keep everybody aware of what’s going on through the town’s web site and adding financial and staff resources to assure effective zoning implementation. Nonetheless, this is a very complex ordinance, more complex than any I worked with in my 16 years of developing and administering planning and zoning for rapidly developing suburbs, or in the ten years of my corporate developer role attempting to unravel them. I, therefore, strongly urge you to utilize the interim period before consideration of the final ordinance and map to aggressively promote workshops and discussion sessions about this matter, especially during the coming summer when most of our seasonal residents and property owners will be present.

I also urge that you request the Planning Commission to review during the interim the questions and suggestions that I, and perhaps others, present at your hearing. My questions focus on the expansion of commercial Resort Service zoning thought-out the township, the broad definition of allowable commercial uses allowed within that zoning district, and the justification for adding business and manufacturing districts.

Specifically, why rezone the harbor’s two entry points, the Light Station property on the west point and the Harbor Marina, former Life-Saving Station, property on the east point from residential, RR, to commercial, RS? Both properties are in either government or non-profit ownership, afford public access for sightseeing, recreational or park use, and have historic significance. Conservation of these “public” properties, not conversion in part or in total to commercial use, would seem to better serve the purposes of the township’s comprehensive plan. Options, in addition to retention of RR, might include the establishment of an historic district, or broadening the definition of the Conservation Environmental Protection district to incorporate public parks and historic properties.

In the same vein, why rezone the harbor shore lands, from the rock outcrops west of the harbor entry all the way west and south to the Shoreline Resort, including the town’s arguably most important natural resource, the west swimming beach, from residential, RR, to commercial. RS? Once again, the Conservation Environmental Protection district would seem more appropriate.

In part, my concern about these two proposed rezonings and others I’ll mention in a moment, is prompted by the broad list of commercial activities permitted either by right (R), by condition (RC), or by Special Permit in the Resort Service (RS) districts. The stated purpose of the RS districts “is to provide recreation or vacation convenience goods and services (restaurants, lodging, small gift shops, outdoor outfitters, etc) for families living in or tourists using the variety of resort or vacation areas in the township.” The listed examples of permitted (R) uses include restaurants, bars and taverns, delicatessens, hotels, rental, sales and repair of guns, appliances, medical and dental clinics, and drug stores. And in the RS-2 district (marina), examples also include night clubs, stores selling, leasing or renting new or used consumer, home and business goods and even tattoo shops and flea markets. And special uses (requires public review) examples in the RS-2 district include self-storage facilities, gasoline stations and auto service and repair shops.

Would any of this activity make sense at the light station or the marina, or along the harbor’s west shore lands? Or for that matter along the scenic and tourism important Mountain Drive, where the recommended Zoning Map establishes 320 acres of RS-2 zoning to accommodate a proposed back country ski slope (a use. that seems appropriate for the location, but might be better handled as a conditional or special use in the Resort Residential district), or atop Brockway Mountain to accommodate the existing nonconforming, but legal, gift shop?

It’s important to recognize that zoning establishes R and RC use rights in perpetuity, including all the uses listed as examples and others similar, without further public review, regardless of ownership. Future permitted uses might and probably will vary significantly from that now existing or now proposed.

I have the same concern about the proposed rezoning from RR to RS-1 of the Lake Breeze property and the historic old Eagle School, now Community Building. The Lake Breeze Resort is currently a legal nonconforming use, and would remain so if the current RR zoning were retained. It’s an important historical property, and the present use, a twelve room hotel without food service is unobtrusive and a desirable neighbor. But when I review the listing of allowable uses if the property is rezoned RS, the potential impact on the nearby residential properties, including mine, could be significant, far more intense than the current use. Would not it be better, and more beneficial to its neighborhood, to allow the present use to continue, and then, at such time as the present or future owners of the property, seek an alternative use, to consider the appropriateness of such proposed use based on its merit, consistency with the then existing comprehensive plan, and the use’s impact on neighboring properties. The same argument would seem appropriate for the School/Community building property. The Community building is currently a permitted use within its existing district.

And then there is the dilemma of existing illegal uses and lapsed nonconforming uses being perpetuated by the recommended rezoning. The Carriage House, now zoned RR, formerly occupied as a home and summer cottage, and then long after the 1975 ordinance was adopted, converted to commercial use, a gift shop, without zoning review and approval, unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence given the County’s apparent distain for zoning enforcement. It’s an illegal use. A commercial activity set in a summer cottage neighborhood serving the gift desires of people visiting our historic lighthouse. Would the township establish RS zoning on this residential property if the current use was not there, I’d think not given the restrictions you are placing even on retail home occupations. So why the proposal to zone the property RS, allowing not only the current use but also any of the other uses permitted in the RS district. It’s a sticky wicket – the Kipfers, the owner operators are our friends and good Harbor neighbors, but is the use appropriate given the residential setting. Perhaps given the apparent sanction by inattentive County officials, the present owners could be granted some sort of a hardship variance, without establishing the commercial use of the property in perpetuity, as the proposed rezoning would do.

The lapsed nonconforming use is the property on the corner of the Cutoff Road and M-26. It’s zoned residential, was for years legally nonconforming, but has been shut down more than sufficiently long to have the nonconforming status lapse. It’s across the road from the Shoreline, also now a nonconforming use, suggesting an argument for the recommended RS zoning, but it is also contiguous to residentially zoned property, across the street from residential homes whose owners have made substantial investments in maintaining and upgrading. Perhaps if a commercial use compatible with these nearby residential properties is proposed, the request can be considered on its merits, but to simply zone the property to RS, allowing whatever of the long list of allowed RS to plant itself there without opportunity for review seems a risky roll of the dice, potentially to the detriment of the parcel’s neighbors.

And lastly, what is the justification or need for the proposed rezoning of the parcels along Highway 41 east of the Cutoff Road and at Delaware to B-1 Business (along 41) and Manufacturing Light and Manufacturing Heavy (at Delaware)? These are intense land uses, in my view inconsistent with the Blueprint for Tomorrow comprehensive plan that underlies the township’s zoning recommendations. Neither the special planning task force the Township Board established in 2001 to assist the Board in its representation of township interests in the County’s development of the Blueprint for Tomorrow planning document, nor the subsequent 2003 task force the Board established to assist in the County’s deliberations over the now emerging County Zoning Ordinance, recommended the antiestablishment of Business or Manufacturing districts within Eagle Harbor Township – quite to the contrary. The recommendations of both task forces were reviewed and approved by the Township Board before transmittal to the County.

The present township Planning Commission argues that the Michigan Township Enabling Act, adopted in 2006, prevents the township from totally precluding such uses. They cite Sec. 207 of the Act. It reads, “A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government or the surrounding area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.” (Underlining added)

This language does not appear to prevent the preclusion of general business and manufacturing districts in the township. It conditions its mandate based on demonstrated need. Perhaps the township should seek an opinion on this issue from a knowledgeable zoning attorney or expert. It’s an important question.

In light of the intensity of the recommended Business and Manufacturing land uses, the fact that they would be established on lands the “Blueprint” suggested be designated for Timber Resource, and the fact that to the best of my knowledge no township land owner has requested such zoning, I believe it would be reasonable for the Township Board to ask the Planning Commission what evidence exists to support, “a demonstrated need for that land use” within the township. Would not it also be the burden of a Business or Manufacturing district zoning applicant to demonstrate the need in support of such an application, not the township? I would urge the Board not to act on these Business and Manufacturing district recommendations until the demonstrated need can be supported.

Notwithstanding these concerns and questions, and with the possible exceptions of the proposed Zoning Map changes on the Brockway Drive, Highway 41, and at Delaware, I would encourage the Board to adopt the recommended Interim Zoning Ordinance and Interim Zoning Map without further ado. The recommendations are on the whole a solid piece of work, and will serve the beast interests of the Township during the interim. We can use the interim period to review and possibly address the issues I have raised, and others might raise.

I thank you for your consideration.

George Hite
277 East North Street
Eagle Harbor

Tuesday, October 31, 2000.Posting On Keweenaw Issues

Big Impact, Little Impact, Good Idea, Bad Idea ?

Is, as its promoters claim, the Mt. Bohemia ski hill to be, "Next to Michigan Tech, the biggest contributor to the Keweenaw Economy"? Or, is it to be, as they also claim, simply a business activity of such little impact that it can be quietly tucked away in a Keweenaw County zoning district (CD-EP) created for the preservation of lands considered either unsuitable for development, or necessary to be reserved for forestry and mineral extraction? It's hard to believe it could be both. Are they trying to have it both ways?

Most likely, it's neither. Perhaps a plus for our all too snow dependent winter tourism trade, but hardly worthy of being hyped as in the same league as Tech. That's a bit like promoting the beautiful little Eagle River Bridge as "Next to the Portage Bridge, the biggest of Keweenaw bridges." Tech with its nearly $400 million physical plant, its $164 million annual budget, it's nearly 1,500 well paying jobs, and its 6,000 resident students is clearly the champ of the local heavyweight economic impact class.

In contrast, the ski hill promoters hawk an investment in ski facilities of less than 1% of Tech's plant, and proclaim a seasonal job base that is probably less than employed at just Tech's Student Union. The ski hill's economic punch would be the new money it attracts to the Copper Country; i.e., lodging, meal and entertainment dollars spent by skiers who don't live here. No one has publicized the estimated number of these snow season, mostly weekend, out-of-town visitors, but it's hard to imagine the dollars they might spend as more than a tiny fraction of what Tech's 6,000 students plunk into our Copper Country economy in the eight or nine months of their daily residence here - not to mention the dollars spent by their visiting families and friends.

Second only to Tech in economic impact? Makes one wonder about the relative economic impact of our forestry industry, our public schools and governments, our medical service systems, our summer vacationers, the snowmobilers, the "color season" travelers, yes, even the wave of retirees building and living in our community. Surely they have more impact than ski hills.

P.T.Barnum would be proud of whoever came up with the all too clever "Next to Tech" nonsense.

That's not to say a ski hill won't have impact on the lands it occupies or on the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. Indeed, the promoter's claim that the facility will attract nearly 76,000 skiers to the Lac La Belle slopes by its fifth year of operation suggests that this is hardly an activity that few would notice. That's a lot of people, a lot of vehicles, a lot of commotion in and about the Lac La Belle community. By comparison, the Porcupine Mountains ski hill attracted less than a third as many skiers in the last big snow year ('95-'96), and has since averaged just a bit over 16,000 skiers a season.

A ski hill on Mt Bohemia of the scale proposed may not be the economic bonanza it's promoters hype, but in terms of its operational impact on neighboring public and private facilities, it's hardly, as its promoters claim, a low intensity use of land.

A few recent visitors to the ski hill construction site have commented on how well the facility seems to be blending into the host hill - concluding that the facility is indeed a low intensity use of the land. That's akin to making an intensity of use judgement about a football stadium or a fair ground based on a visit to the site on a non-game or non-fair date. The key word in the zoning phrase "low intensity use" is "use". "Looks" are important, but the test of a facility's impact on the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties, its impact on local public facilities, its impact on nearby natural resources; and, as importantly, its consistency with the purposes for which the zoning district in which it is located was created, is what's going on when it's in operation.

The prospect of 76,000 skiers, their vehicles, busses, and scores of maintenance, supply and waste removal trucks and equipment all milling about Lac La Belle over the three, possibly four, months of a good snow season hardly fits a rational definition of a low intensity use. Nor does it seem consistent with the purposes for which the current zoning was created. It might be a good idea, but lets not fool ourselves - a ski hill is a busy place.

So, if we are not to blindly swoon at the economic impact hype excesses, or be lulled into indifference by pastoral mountain scenes, what are we to make of this ski hill proposal? Is it a good thing, or not?

Probably good, certainly for those of us who able to enjoy downhill skiing. And, for all of us if it's well planned, with adequate public oversight to assure that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate any possible adverse operational impacts on nearby private properties, and on public facilities and resources.

It's important to note that a "ski hill" is not the same as a "ski resort". A ski resort, with its attendant restaurants, bars, retail shops, conference facilities, and rental and for sale housing, etc. is a very different and much more intrusive use. The "Porkies" and Ripley are ski hills. Indianhead and Boyne Mountain are ski resorts.

The proposed ski hill's economic impact is insignificant compared to Tech's, but, nonetheless, important. Our collective economic well-being is increasingly dependent on the accumulative effect of hundreds of smaller investments in new businesses, recreational projects, public institutions, and housing. There are not likely any "Tech league" blockbuster economic impact investments in our future.

Our economic strength, as well as our strength as a livable community, depends on how well we plan for, how carefully and critically we review, and how skillfully we coordinate the development of these smaller individual investments.

Adequate public oversight, comprehensive planning and coordination of individual effort are exactly what have been missing from the Lac La Belle ski hill deliberation. That's correctable.

Keweenaw County voters can start making these corrections next Tuesday.

Monday, March 6th 2000.George's "Almost" Daily Journal. Things are heating up around here - and it's not just the weather. The latest fuss is about a proposal to develop a ski hill and related facilities on the south face of Mount Bohemia, the side of the hill that looms over quiet Lac La Belle and Bete Grise.

The hill, like most land in Keweenaw, is owned by Champion International (about to be merged with a Finnish paper company), and the ski facility developer is a company called Crosswinds of Novi, Michigan. I know little about Crosswinds' development or citizenship track record, or their credentials as a ski facility developer/operator, nor, to the best of my knowledge, does anyone else around here. That apparently includes the County Board, which is being asked to rezone the property (700 acres!) to a resort classification (the way Copper Harbor is zoned), and apply for about a million dollars in state grants to underwrite the endeavor.

Project proponents, not unexpectedly, tout the hoards of dollars skiers would leave in the coffers of local businesses and the additional development the project would spur, while others wonder about adverse environmental impacts associated with the development on the hill and the impact of motels, condos, stores, restaurants, etc. the facility might encourage on the adjacent community. Some have asked what will happen if the project goes belly-up, and we are left with eroding trails, "resort" zoning, etc. The Houghton newspaper, which seems friendly to the project, reported that when a Lac La Belle resident asked if the County had reviewed Crosswinds' feasibility study, the answer was no and that, "If they (Crosswinds) were pursuing it, they must feel the project is feasible." Makes me shudder.

I suppose a ski hill would be nice, although I thought the maxim of Ski Hill 101 was not to build one on a south-facing slope. I do wonder why we state taxpayers should anti-up nearly a million bucks to subsidize a for-profit development company's project, especially one of such dubious feasibility, limited public benefit, and mixed blessing.

County officials, who I expect yearn for the "good old days" when County Boards could cater to such proposals without notice, before or after, now face stormy sessions as they meet in public hearing on March 15th to consider the grant application, and again on March 28th to consider the rezoning. I remember, none too fondly, similar late evening encounters, both as a regional shopping center developer's representative and as a community's city manager (not at the same time or in the same town). The usual cast of highly vocal characters will be present: the protectors of all that's holy (sometime labeled the "last guy in shut the door crowd"), and the better dressed, usually from out of town, proponents, dedicated to rescuing us from our economic and social doldrums. This latter group, and the libertarians who often rally around their banner, are sometimes labeled the "unfettered free enterprise zealots"- or "Greeks bearing gifts". (Some of kinder things said of me when I wore the developer hat.)

There, of course, will be thoughtful people representing all views, presenting reasoned argument and posing challenging questions, but the needed dose of raw edged "democracy" will be supplied by those of greater passion. I have latent sympathies for elected and appointed officials in such situations, but I'll enjoy being able to sit in the rear pew and watch our county guys and gal squirm as they get roasted in the Keweenaw heat.

(906) 289-4536

March 31, 2000.Letter to County Commissioners.

March 31, 2000