Zoning Update – Rust to Judgement
Nov 20, 2025
“My joy comes from knowing that, instead of reverting to the entirety of the repealed #439 Zoning Code, since last years election, the Planning Commission genuinely listened.
They took to heart the community comments voiced at the winter Town Halls, and after the Open Houses, Jeff Grimm made every effort to follow the community’s advice and requests. Many of those suggestions — and then many more — were incorporated into the proposed code.”
— Karin Reid Offield continues:
“How to frame it ?” It’s a win for the community – proof that a planning code is able to be built with everyone in the whole town involved, not like the building of Repealed Code #439 that was done in subcommittee… but that was then…not now.
If you read the WLHS website, and follow posts across the boards, you will see that we are in favor of the new proposed code, with a few as of yet undetermined details that need to be fixed.
Like the Planning Commissioners, we have a goal of reaching out to the hundreds and hundreds of community members that we interface with. We still can only talk with one person at a time, and we cannot control them – their opinions, nor is that our mission.
Generally WLHS does not take a public position. Citizens take a public position. We can state facts like we asked the PC to do X, and they did X. We hope all that read this can understand that the community speaks, and we prefer to focus on things that matter for the operation of the city.
We have been asked last week whether WLHS will “approve” the proposed code. Speaking only for myself, yes — I personally will support the proposed code but the question that remains is how to address the outstanding issues that we feel are not settled. The “Rust to Judgement” is our reminder that good zoning policy—like good craftsmanship—takes time, care, and a steady hand.
The Planning Commission preferred that certain changes wait until the City Council review, or, alternatively, be handled in early 2026 by the Planning Commission as part of a “clean-up process”.
I am not in favor of this choice. We have been raising these issues since September. Just as rust forms when something is rushed, neglected, or not fully prepared, rushing to judgment on a major zoning code overhaul can create long-term problems for the community. The current draft shows real effort, but it’s not yet as strong, clear, or community-aligned as it could be.
There are the reasons why: We don’t want to rush the zoning code.
A zoning rewrite is one of the most important decisions a small town can make.
We take the time to review, refine, and get it right.1. We welcome careful, constructive input.
Community voices make the code stronger.
Good zoning is built from collaboration, not deadlines.2. We aim for clarity, fairness, and enforceability.
A zoning code should serve everyone—residents, businesses, and the City—without confusion or unintended consequences.
3. We protect what makes Harbor Springs special.
The code should reflect our values: stewardship, scale, character, and community balance.
4. We improve the draft, not attack the people.
“Rust to Judgment” is about process, not personalities.
We focus on fixing the document so it works for decades.5. We commit to a code that stands up over time.
A rushed code creates problems later—disputes, variances, costly corrections.
A thoughtful code protects taxpayers and preserves trust.
The outstanding concerns are mentioned by community members in the Winter TownHall Notes; concerns found in the Notes on Open Houses (9.3-9.11.2025); included in the 60 Questions 10.10.25; and are also included in Lynee Wells Aligned Planning Memo’s. Lynee is a City Planning Professional and began to interact with The City of Harbor Springs prior to meetings on August 14, onward. She was hired to help us understand the various Planning steps. These documents document this years’ WLHS history, carefully curated for the community to follow along.
Town Hall Listening Sessions2024-2025
PC Open House September 3,5,8, 9 & 11, 2025 Open Houses
Lynee Wells Additions to the 10.21.25 Proposed Zoning Code for11.17.25 CC Meet
60 Questions with Responses 10.21.25
Ordinance review comments AR 11.17.25, WLHS.docx (2)
Outstanding Issues
- The Administrative Review Committee (ARC) was narrowed in the draft zoning code to address longstanding community concerns. Uses that previously qualified for ARC review under the 2005 Code or the repealed Code #439 were moved to full Special Land Use review or removed, with the Planning Commission intending to restrict the ARC to overlay districts and minor site-plan adjustments. Despite these changes, the ARC remained a central point of contention during the rewrite due to public concerns about transparency, accountability, and the concentration of decision-making authority in a small group of non-resident or paid consultants.While ARC use was described as “on hold” except in the Shoreline Protection Overlay, Assessor Jeff Grimm noted that the ARC can be appropriate for technically complex shoreline and floodplain matters requiring expertise beyond the Zoning Administrator.
The ARC, composed of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission Chair, one Planning Commissioner, the City Attorney, City Manager, and the Planning Consultant, would under the current draft also have authority to approve Commercial Business District projects up to 5,000 square feet. This is unusually large for Harbor Springs, especially when comparable communities limit administrative approvals to 1,000–1,500 square feet or require neighbor notification and Planning Commission review for larger proposals.
Questions remain about whether the 5,000-square-foot limit applies per footprint or total floor area, whether multiple additions could be approved incrementally, and whether a structure of 15,000 square feet across three stories could be approved without downtown neighbor involvement.
Recommended approach:
• Hold further public discussion on the size threshold.
• Reduce the allowable ARC review square footage.
• Clarify when and where the ARC should operate. - PD (Planned Development) language.
Several subjective terms still present potential for legal disputes. Clarifying this language would help avoid known litigious consequences. The PD ordinance approval process in Section 10.2.10 PD Application Determinations should refer back to the standards of review and approval, such that the approving bodies are directed to the standards to be met for approval, being 10.2.1 through 10.2.6.Critics, including legal experts, argued that the qualifying objectives listed in the PD standards (such as Section 10.2.4, often labeled E or F in drafts) were often too vague, thereby failing to establish clear public need or provide “objective guidance” to the Commission on how to decide. It was noted that having arbitrary components in the code could lead the city to be sued by developers
Recommended Approach
• If not already clear, retain the option for the Planning Commission to require performance bonds to ensure projects are completed as approved.
• Elevate alignment with the City’s Master Plan to a mandatory qualification and clarify subjective terms such as “harmony,” “nuisance,” and “substantial injury” to reduce legal risk. Prove that the developers goals they must meet are the”toughest in the area” protecting the rights and costs of doing business.
• Add an early-disclosure step at the pre-application stage so neighbors are informed before major design costs are incurred, and strongly encourage developers to communicate with adjacent property owners early.
- Commercial Business Districts (CBD) first-floor height, measurement and massing.
Clear guidance is needed on how first-floor height is measured and where measurement begins on a property. Also the height of the first street level floor needs clarification. Eliminating the maximum story height for buildings, including residential and commercial buildings, has the potential to result in out-of-scale and out-of-context construction. Increasingly, in an effort to maximize leaseable space and views, flat roof box buildings are rising along shorelines and in resort towns at three stories tall. Without the limitation of the 2.5 story maximum in residential areas, there will be cases where new homes may rise to three stories (and garages at two stories) within 8′ of the property line (in R-1B, for example) or at 5′ for the garage.Similarly, in the CBD, limiting the height of the first floor is important to ensure that massing aligns with neighboring buildings and the ground floor, which is experienced by passers-by, is at a human scale. Urban design theory and architectural practice recommend that the first floor in a commercial hub should be around 14 to 15 feet high. This greater height is desirable for accommodating larger retail spaces and providing large windows (transparency), which is consistent with goals to attract more activity downtown.
Recommended Approach
• Does Harbor Springs want or understand the details of this? It has not been discussed perhaps?
• Hold further public discussion on the heights and confirm that the PD proposals meets the goals and objectives of the City of Harbor Springs Master Plan.
- Mistakes/referencing mistakes and errors still exist in the proposed code. Let’s fix them now. because mistakes become harder to correct after adoption.
Recommended Approach
- Fix it now, as it’s an opportunity to improve the final product.
Where things stand now
At the November 20, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to move the proposed zoning code over to the City Council.
Following the Planning Commission’s vote to forward the draft to City Council, Commissioner Kenny Stewart wrote to express his appreciation for WLHS’s work and the contributions of residents across the community:
“Are the proposed updates perfect? No. The updates are much better than what we have for our current code and night-and-day better than the repealed code… The draft zoning code updates of October 21 are a product of the people. The Planning Commission sought input, we listened, we debated, we drafted and we listened again.”
“WLHS has played a valuable role in setting a high bar, and the Planning Commission has sincerely tried to meet or exceed those expectations.”
“One of my goals for joining the Planning Commission was to be part of an effort to bring our community back together. I’d like to ask for your help in doing that… You and WLHS have a very special moment in time and are best positioned to help bring us back as one community.”
We appreciate Commissioner Stewart’s words, his sincerity, and his recognition of the community’s role in shaping this draft. His letter underscores what many feel: this zoning rewrite has been a collective effort.
WLHS deeply values unity—and unity grows from good process, open dialogue, and shared facts. We also value independence and accuracy. WLHS does not “approve” or “disapprove” zoning codes as an organization; individuals take positions. Our role is to ensure transparency, research, and clarity so that the community—and the City Council—can make informed decisions.
Ultimately, it is up to the City Council to listen to the reasoning and decide what is best. Many residents feel there is no need to rush. Deferring the zoning code decision into early 2026 poses no risk to the community and would allow the remaining issues to be addressed thoughtfully
Back to our ‘Rust to Judgement’ Platform.
‘Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good’ should never be used as permission to leave loose ends. Good work is complete work—sound, finished, and responsibly resolved. “To me, that is a true statement. We are not quite done yet – and I hope this explanations and the links attached will be helpful. A thank you to Lynee Wells at Aligned Planning and John Iacoangeli at Beckett & Raeder for your consultations, Jeff Grimm and Bill Mulder for your agreement that the community voices are alive and well in Harbor Springs.”
— Thank you for listening, Karin Reid Offield
Here is some definition and advice from Lynee.
Today, it is suggested there are two methods for crafting zoning that have stood the test of time and could benefit Harbor Springs at this critical juncture. Both take cues from the past.
- MEASURE WHAT MATTERS — This technique requires some on-the-ground time. Go into town, take your measuring tape and a friend, and start measuring what is working. Where are the buildings from the curb? How tall is the first story? How many stories? How big are the windows and where are they placed? What is the spacing between buildings and between property lines? Use what you find to make objective requirements in your code.
- STRESS TEST — Take your new code and test the regulations against projects that have been built or potential vacant sites that could be developed. Mock up what would happen. Max out the site because it will be maxed out. Is this working? Does the result match what matters to the people of Harbor Springs?
These practical methods serve a deeper purpose: they ground our regulations in Harbor Springs’ existing character while preparing for development pressure that will inevitably come. We cannot recreate the past or manufacture authenticity, but we can learn from what already works.
Development operates like an all-you-can-eat buffet—developers will consume every allowable square foot until the site bursts. We must be selective about what we put on the menu by looking to the past to inform the future. In the high-stakes world of development, where each project shapes our community’s future, we should at least know what we’re serving.