This piece was sent to us by a community member – in response to our recent conversations….
Planned Developments are powerful tools. In larger cities, incremental increases may spread across a broad geography.
In Harbor Springs, incremental increases compound quickly. A handful of approvals on key sites could shift density, infrastructure demand, and character in ways that cannot be undone. This is not anti-growth. It is proportional planning.
The smaller the city, the more precise the planning must be.
Dear friends,
Harbor Springs is 1.3 square miles.
That simple fact guides every land use decision we make.
We are not a regional city and we are not a township. We are a compact, historic, waterfront resort community with year-round residents, seasonal homeowners, businesses, retirees, families, and visitors—all within a very small physical footprint.
That reality requires a unique approach. We already allow accessory dwelling units and duplexes in certain districts.
Housing choice exists here. The question is not whether flexibility is possible—it is how much additional flexibility is responsible land use through Planned Developments, and what that flexibility means for the Harbor Springs community.
Not every parcel is the same. Small parcels are woven into established neighborhoods. Others are larger tracts that represent the last significant redevelopment opportunities in Harbor Springs. The future use of these larger parcels as well as reconfigured smaller parcels in existing neighborhoods will shape our community for generations.
Applying the same flexible Planned Development tool to every parcel, regardless of size, location, infrastructure capacity, or neighborhood context, ignores real and inherent differences between properties. Planned Developments does not mean identical treatment—it means recognizing differences responsibly.
Large parcels carry greater cumulative impacts: more traffic, more demand on infrastructure, greater visual scale, higher population intensity, and long-term shifts in character. Once those decisions are made, they cannot be undone.
Voters Importance
We must also be aware that the defeat of Ordinance 439 at the ballot box reinforced a clear message from the community: development density matters, and voters want a direct voice in deciding it. Whether one supported or opposed Ordinance 439, the outcome provided guidance. It signaled caution about increasing density and changing the scale of development in Harbor Springs. How we uphold that voter guidance is an important factor now.
If the community has said no to broader density increases, then we must carefully examine whether the use of Planned Developments reintroduced density incrementally. Even well-intentioned flexibility can feel like an end-run around a public decision if it produces outcomes similar to what was rejected. Public trust depends not only on legal authority of the Planning Commission but an alignment with voter intent.
We also hear, rightly, about multigenerational housing and aging in place. Every generation has different needs. Older residents may want smaller homes. Families may need moderate-scale housing. Seasonal residents increase peak demand. Investors respond to opportunity. The zoning code must distinguish between these realities. Not all growth is the same, and not all impacts are equal.
Looking backward matters because Harbor Springs has evolved carefully over decades. Looking forward matters even more because the decisions we make on the remaining larger parcels and incremental changes within smaller parcels will define our scale permanently.
Planned Developments are powerful tools. In larger cities, incremental increases may spread across a broad geography. In Harbor Springs, incremental increases compound quickly. A handful of approvals on key sites could shift density, infrastructure demand, and character in ways that cannot be undone. This is not anti-growth. It is proportional planning. The smaller the city, the more precise the planning must be.
Harbor Springs is a historic waterfront community in a tourism-driven market with limited infrastructure and a land base that is fully defined. Our peak seasonal population already exceeds our year-round census. That combination is rare, and our zoning response should reflect that reality.
When considering the future of larger parcels, clear density expectations in advance, tie any deviation to measurable public benefit, evaluate infrastructure capacity first, and consider cumulative impacts, not just project-by-project impacts matters to our voters, neighborhoods and our land owners.
Every generation deserves thoughtful planning. Thoughtful planning in Harbor Springs must be precise, transparent, and grounded in who we actually are—and in what our voters have clearly expressed.
Because we are small.
Because we are built out.
Because we serve many competing interests within 1.3 square miles.
Because a few remaining parcels and changes within existing neighborhoods will determine our long-term identity.
And because the ballot box has already spoken on density.
Looking back reminds us how carefully this community has been shaped. Looking forward requires equal care—and respect for voter guidance—as we decide what comes next.