Letter to Editor – M.Kilbourn About the RRC – Refused at Harbor Light
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE HARBOR LIGHT
January 9, 2025
Please accept this letter for publication in the Letters to the Editor:
The City Council enacted a zoning ordinance which the voters evaluated and rejected via a ballot referendum last November. Since then, the City Council has been busy attempting to reinstate many the zoning issues that voters rejected. This resistance makes HS residents wonder what is going on. The only conclusion is that the City Council continues to seek ways to increase density in the city that will lead to more tax revenue! This is not what Harbor Springs residents want!
The zoning ordinance proposals that were rejected included some good updates, but many undesirable things such as the burden of qualifying as a Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC), an issue that was originated and encouraged by the City Manager. Even though the City Zoning Board claims they never discussed RRC in their meetings, it is clearly the backbone of many sections of the rejected zoning ordinance and requires our community to continually qualify. There is even a new City RRC Board which acts like the decision to adopt the RRC is not so much about why we should adopt it, but when. Among the draconian provisions of the RRC is the requirement that the City “maintain an updated list of at least three priority (‘development ready’) sites” each year that are “actively marketed” with a “vision that includes desired development outcomes.” Read: “More density and more tax money.”
One Council member said the RRC certification provisions were being proposed again to obtain financial “grants from the State.” However, Michigan State Senator John Damoose made it clear last spring that Harbor Springs is not a special exception, stating “…one thing I will not do is look for a special exception for our town if that is the request…Harbor Springs should have to play by the same rules as everybody else.”
Among the extremely disturbing parts of the rejected zoning ordinance that are still being proposed is the elimination of oversight by the zoning and building departments for such things as constructing duplexes and adding accessory dwelling units (ADU) on existing lots. No oversight! “By right” are the words, as described in the RRC documents, that eliminate any input or objection by neighboring property owners.
Another item that is back on the Planning Commission table for zoning issue discussion is the proposal for adopting a minimum lot width of 52 feet and minimum allowable side-yard setback distance of only 8 ft. These dimensions will allow developers the ability to increase the density on many HS lots. The Planning Department is also dredging up the plan on changing the zoning classification on large portions of HS land to make room for high density development. The clear motivator here is an increase in density and the resulting tax revenues once developers get their hands on rezoned available land.
Cries to the Council to slow down and allow all residents to become informed is again falling on deaf ears. Last spring one council member even said she only “represented voters” – ignoring the important facts that over 62% of the residents of Harbor Springs do not vote here and are responsible for paying approximately 80% of the HS taxes!
To be clear, Harbor Springs residents want to retain the charm, density and beauty of our community. Thus, they want input on the revised zoning issues and do not want increased density via becoming a Redevelopment Ready Community.
Mike Kilbourn
703 Dellwood Lane
Harbor Springs, MI