Disclosure & Commitment to Open Dialogue
We Love Harbor Springs is committed to fairness, transparency, and careful research. The information shared on this site is offered in good faith to support informed public discussion. Facts, interpretations, and conclusions presented here are always open to challenge, correction, or clarification. We welcome additional information, differing viewpoints, and evidence-based feedback at any time, recognizing that strong communities are built through accuracy, openness, and respectful dialogue.
Here is some more info that will help you make a decision how to understand the current status of the zoning. : an interesting wrap-up
The current effort to advance a comprehensive zoning reform through the Planning Commission and secure adoption by a City Council majority reflects both urgency and political calculation by its supporters. Whether this effort succeeds—or ultimately backfires—will depend not solely on the final vote count, but on how the process itself is perceived by the community it is meant to serve. The meeting on January 5th, 2026 will tell us.
Harbor Springs voters have already weighed in once on this issue. That history matters. The coming weeks will test the boundary between legitimate governance and political opportunism, and will determine whether public trust can be preserved and understood. A zoning code adopted without full confidence, clarity, and community consensus risks undermining not only land-use outcomes, but the credibility of local decision-making itself.
Why Process Matters More Than Speed
Zoning ordinances are not temporary policy statements. Once adopted, they become permanent law, shaping development patterns, neighborhood character, infrastructure demands, and environmental outcomes for decades. Unlike many legislative actions, zoning codes are difficult to reverse, even when unintended consequences emerge.
Rushing adoption does not simply accelerate progress—it transfers long-term risk to the community. Ambiguities, discretionary standards, and unresolved provisions are not neutral. They create interpretive space that will be filled later through administrative decisions, developers, legal challenges, or project-by-project exceptions, often outside the public eye. In this context, speed should never be confused with effectiveness.
The Public Trust Imperative – Important to Consider
Public trust is not built through procedural compliance alone. It is built through transparency, deliberation, and the shared understanding that major decisions reflect broad and meaningful engagement.
The repeal of the prior zoning ordinance demonstrated that Harbor Springs residents are attentive, informed, and willing to act when they believe the process of asking City Council to delay their vote in May 2024 has failed them. That episode was not simply a policy rejection; it was a referendum on process. Proceeding now without fully addressing known concerns risks repeating the same mistake—only with higher stakes.
A perception that the outcome is being predetermined, or that remaining issues are being deferred “until later,” erodes confidence even among those who support reform in principle.
The Risk of Narrow Majorities and Lasting Law
Adopting a sweeping zoning overhaul by a slim margin carries inherent risk. Laws passed under such conditions may be legally valid, but they are politically fragile. They invite continued conflict, legal scrutiny, and future repeal efforts—none of which serve the city well.
Good zoning is not measured by how quickly it is passed, but by how well it endures. Endurance comes from clarity, fairness, and legitimacy. That legitimacy is strongest when a code is clearly finished, broadly understood, and widely supported.
A Choice with Long-Term Consequences
City Council now faces a consequential choice: whether to prioritize speed or stewardship.
Sending an unfinished zoning code back for targeted refinement is not obstruction. It is responsible governance. It acknowledges the permanence of the decision, respects the lessons of recent history, and affirms that Harbor Springs is committed not just to change, but to getting it right.
In land-use policy, there is no eraser. Once adopted, the code will shape the city long after the current council members have left office. That reality demands patience, care, and the courage to slow down when the stakes are this high. WLHS Research Team
FOR MORE….Discussions regarding the Administrative Review Committee – the discussions in the chain of meetings from 2020 to 2025.
In all the meetings with property owners and citizens, it’s not clear that anyone asked for an Administrative Review Committee. Over the years, in many public meetings, many have expressed concerns that planning commission decisions would be delegated to the ARC with virtually no accountability or citizen representation.
The discussion against administrative reviews has been extensive. Here are the many instances in which the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) was raised as an issue. And specific concerns that the Administrative Review Committee would review all projects in the Commercial Business District smaller than 5000 sq ft. But in these instances, the Planning Commission deferred discussion on the proposal until later in the zoning review process, and then kept in the objectionable delegation of this zoning authority.
We found this chain of discussions that have taken place over the years and months. Please respond with your thoughts.
October 15, 2020
- Discussion: The concept of an Administrative Site Plan Review Committee was introduced to expedite reviews. Planning Consultant from Beckett & Raeder John Iacoangeli explained the proposed qualifier: “I put in a qualifier that it had to be 5,000 square feet or less for administrative [review]; anything over 5,000 square feet would go to the planning commission for full review.” He noted he selected that number thinking it represented a “typical small retail building.”
February 8, 2024
- Discussion: During a presentation on the zoning code update (prior to the code’s repeal and subsequent rewrite), the Commission reviewed a slide regarding “reducing administrative processes.” The presentation noted that the administrative committee could approve “commercial projects under 5,000 square feet,” framing it as a way to save time for applicants and the Commission.
August 15, 2024
- Former Planning Commissioner Rick Tarchinski referred to the Administrative Review Committee as a “hot point“ during the August 15, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. He stated, “I think if you go back and check all your meetings in town halls… you’re going to find that this Review Committee was one of the hot points that people didn’t like because they had great fear that it was making it too easy and too cheap for outside developers to come in”.
March 20, 2025
- Discussion: During the zoning code rewrite process, the Commission reviewed Article 8 (Site Plan Review). The administrative review committee was discussed as a mechanism to fast-track small projects. The trigger for full Planning Commission review was reiterated: “if the proposed use is less than 5,000 square feet they can go to administrative review but if somebody comes in with a project that’s over 5,000 square feet… it’s got to go to the Planning Commission.”
July 17, 2025
- Discussion: There was a discussion regarding the ARC’s role in approving minor amendments to Planned Developments (Article 10). The Commission discussed whether the ARC should review minor amendments or if it should be a smaller group of city staff, eventually deciding to leave the ARC structure as a placeholder for such reviews
August 14, 2025
- Discussion: The Commission reviewed recommendations for the zoning code. It was noted that the administrative committee could approve “commercial projects under 5,000 square feet,” and this was presented as a method to reduce bureaucratic processes.
August 21, 2025
- Discussion: There was an extensive, detailed discussion regarding the specific powers and composition of the ARC. The Commission debated whether the ARC should be “dormant” or active, specifically in relation to shoreline protection overlays versus general uses,. They discussed the specific makeup of the committee (Zoning Administrator, Chair, City Attorney, etc.). Planning Consultant from Beckett & Raeder John Iacoangeli explained, “it’s dormant until such time that you activate it but in the code I have a provision in there that there is an Administrative Review Committee if you want to use it.”
- Outcome: The Commission reached a consensus to keep the ARC in the code but limit its active scope primarily to specific technical reviews (like shoreline protection) rather than general use approvals.
October 21, 2025
- Discussion: During public comment, resident Nan Mautz voiced opposition to the proposal, stating that “administrative review may be appropriate for minor issues… but not for by right projects up to 5,000 square ftthat could significantly alter neighborhood character.”
- Response: Zoning Administrator Jeff Grimm clarified that while the 5,000 square foot trigger exists for administrative review in the draft, the ARC’s authority had been narrowed in the new code compared to previous versions, though the threshold for commercial projects remained a point of public concern.
August 14, 2025
- The Commission continued to finalize “straw man” suggestions, specifically regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). One commissioner noted, “what we’ve done tonight with Straw Man’s suggestions is that we’ve saved a lot of character preserving and protecting”
November 20, 2025
- Discussion: This was the meeting where the Planning Commission voted to move the proposed zoning code to the City Council. The 5,000 square foot administrative review threshold was identified in reports as a provision that might draw “pushback” and remained an “outstanding issue” in community critiques.
- Planning Commissioner Chip Everest identified the administrative review trigger as the item that would draw the “most pushback” during the November 20, 2025 meeting
MORE…… Discussions about Planned Development (PD’s or PUD’s) 2023-2025 please go to this link on the WLHS Website to read the discussions in the chain of meetings from 2023 to 2025.
Several concerns have been raised about Planned Unit Development. While the Zoning has many zoning districts, the proposed zoning dramatically expands Planned Development rights, giving a form of wild card option anywhere in the city. Removing nearly all of the objective standards. With a simple majority vote of some future Planning Commission and City Council, a developer could build a creative development that significantly departs from current thinking. Examples of concerns over this “Creative Development” option have been raised for many years, but rarely debated:
July 20, 2023: Early discussions noted that PUDs allow for flexibility in projects, such as the Bay Street Cottages or pocket neighborhoods.
April 17, 2025: The Planning Commission reviewed Article 10 (Land Development Options). The consultant explained that a PD is essentially a development agreement between the city and a developer, recorded with the county, allowing for flexibility and innovation beyond standard zoning rigidity.
May 1, 2025: Resident Jonathan Wayman argued that the draft language stating a PD shall not be used “solely” to avoid zoning requirements was too weak. He recommended changing “solely” to “primarily” to prevent developers from using PDs to bypass density limits,. The Commission debated requiring a “public necessity” threshold but settled on “desirability” as a better standard for creative proposals.
June 5, 2025: The Commission reached a consensus to allow PDs in most zoning districts, including Agricultural Residential (AR), but excluded them from Industrial, Community, and Mobile Home Park districts.
September 18, 2025: Due to intense public concern during the five Open Houses – held from September 3 – 11, that PDs would allow overdevelopment (e.g., hotels on Glenn Drive), the Commission voted to remove the Planned Development section (Article 10.1) and Cluster Housing (10.5) from the draft code entirely, intending to revisit them later.
October 16, 2025: The Commission reversed course. Rather than reverting to the 2005 code or leaving PDs out, they decided to keep the draft PD language and refine it. A professional subcommittee was formed, including the City Planner, Zoning Administrator, and planners representing community groups (Lynee Wells and Andrew Blau), to negotiate a consensus draft. The City decided to disband the sub-committee before discussions or decisions could take place.
Nov 20, 2025: The Commission added a discretionary requirement for developers to submit a table comparing their proposed PD against a “by-right” project to clearly illustrate base density versus requested changes.
Nov 20, 2025: To address fears of “strip malls” in residential areas, the Commission finalized a provision limiting non-residential uses in a PD to 10% of the first-floor gross square footage, requiring they provide a community benefit (e.g., coffee shop, art gallery).
Conclusion
The fundamental concern remains that a future developer, working with a future Planning Commission, could create specialized zoning tailored to a favored or litigious applicant. Because several of the standards in the proposed zoning code rely on subjective language, outcomes become unpredictable and inconsistent. This creates a loophole that could allow elements of previously rejected zoning to be reintroduced on a case-by-case basis, anywhere in the city.
For this reason, we respectfully ask that the proposed zoning code be sent back to the Planning Commission in the first quarter of 2026 for focused discussion and refinement. After that work is completed, the final zoning ordinance can be returned to the City Council for approval.
Please know this request is limited and deliberate. The four outstanding items we have raised have been consistently identified through out the summer into October, and it is not our intention to create a never-ending or repetitive review process. Like you, we are committed to adopting a new zoning ordinance—one the entire community can be proud of.
We are asking City Council to return the proposed zoning code to the Planning Commission because a small number of weak points, if left unaddressed, could result in permanent and unintended changes to Harbor Springs’ community character. Once adopted, the ordinance locks in these standards regardless of future intent to revise them.
Approving the code as submitted before this work is completed places Harbor Springs at unnecessary and avoidable risk.