After last night’s Planning Commissioner meeting, I left with a lot on my mind — and maybe you did too. It got me thinking: What do I love most about my neighborhood? About our downtown?Is it the undulating rooflines, the mix of buildings that still carry hints of the homes or shops they once were? The way no two blocks look quite the same? That variety — that lack of uniformity — is part of Harbor Springs’ character.
But with these penciled-in zoning changes, I found myself wondering: Are we slowly erasing that? Will the downtown’s natural rhythm — that special something ‘sauce’ — fade with more conformity and our quest to offer choice in every neighborhood?
Is this really the direction our community asked for?
A big part of the conversation now revolves around conformity — but what does that actually mean in practice? For example:
- Should bluff lots shrink to a minimum width of 60 feet?
- Does that change suggest density over preservation of green space over time?
- Are we offering flexibility to create sameness?
We discussed these changes are about “cleaning up the code.” But cleaning up can also mean smoothing over what once made us distinct. We’re still trying to update a zoning code to reflect the 2022 Master Plan, which was shaped by community surveys. Those documents should be our foundation — and the zoning code should follow their lead. They are meant to represent the voice of the people who live here, and to shape laws that can hold up through the next Master Plan, already due in 2027.
So maybe it’s time to revisit some key questions:
- What’s clearly stated in the 2022 Master Plan?
- What did the 2020–2021 surveys say about:
• Choice
• Conformity
• Height limits
• Smaller lots
• Agricultural-Residential (AR) zoning?
Also:
- Are zoning updates reflecting the Master Plan meant to address the “frequent requests” made to the Planning Commission?
- What exactly are those requests — and do they increase density or enhance green spaces did or encroach on available public services?
- Do they represent the broader community, or a narrow set of interests?
- Should density be granted by right simply by reducing lot sizes under the label of conformity?
- Are these requests improving our town, or altering it in ways we’ll regret?
Let’s not forget: smaller lots nearly always lead to higher density. And with a few large parcels and lot splits soon to be before Planning Commission what we think might never happen might. Smaller lots may work in some places to bring conformity and as we heard last night some conformity is already unrestricted even on the smaller lots — but do wewant that for every block, every neighborhood?
Downtown, height is another issue. Raising the limit from 30 feet to 35 feet might not sound like much, but do we understand what that change means for the streetscape and skyline? The difference between a block with visual rhythm and one that feels too uniform can be just a few feet. It was also pointed out in public comment that there’s been no financial loss for sellers in the CBD — a good reminder that preserving character doesn’t mean blocking progress. It means making thoughtful progress.
So we ask again:
- Are these proposed changes aligned with the Master Plan and the survey results?
- Or are the proposals shifting our town’s future before we’ve had the full conversation around land use?
Some history is worth noting: The zoning code wasn’t updated after the 2012 Vision or the 2014 Master Plan. Why not? No one — not the community, not City Council — asked for the current process we’re now navigating (twice). As Jeannie Benjamin shared, and something only 13 years ago though we’d collectively forgotten, the 2012 Vision came from the city planner (WardTrim), not the Planning Commission itself.
These are thoughtful questions. This isn’t politics. It’s what healthy communities do — we show up, ask questions, compare notes, and try to get it right. Let’s keep talking, keep asking, and make sure the code we write today reflects not just easing non conformity — but people and neighborhoods and community.
Planning Commission is doing a good job asking questions we need to hear. We need to help them and ourselves by remaining engaged, informed, and a curious forward thinking community.
Great meeting, everyone.