To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
By a narrow vote of four to three, the Peninsula Township Board approved the “81 on East Bay” development at a special meeting last night.
After presentations by the developer and other experts, as well as public comment, the Board voted on each ordinance item that related to the project, with the final overall vote to approve the development as follows: Margaret Achorn, no; Isaiah Wunsch, yes; Maura Sanders, no; Warren Wahl, yes; Brad Bickle, yes; Rob Manigold, yes; Joanne Westphal, no.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
The 81-acre development, which has been several years in the making and included multiple lawsuits, borders Boursaw Road and consists of 41 single-family lots and up to 40 boat docking spaces on East Bay under a Special Use Permit.
At tonight’s meeting, the continuation of a public hearing which took place on Oct. 27, the Township Board was allowed to deliberate on only two issues remanded back to the Township by now-retired 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers in a January 2016 ruling.
Those issues include the location and functionality of the development’s emergency access road, and whether the standards for soil erosion, grading and storm water have been met. No other issues could be considered with regard to the development, which was approved by the previous Township Board in August 2015 (prior to public information that the land was farmed for decades), but challenged in court by Township resident James Komendera and the nonprofit group Preserve Old Mission. The group’s suit led to the January 2016 ruling by Judge Rodgers.
After a presentation by developer Kevin O’Grady’s team and other expert sources, along with public comment time, the Township Board discussed the issues and then addressed each related item in the ordinance, the standards of which needed to be met in order to approve the development.
The votes for each ordinance item and corresponding motion, including the final motion to approve the development, were fairly consistent, with Township Clerk Joanne Westphal, Trustee Margaret Achorn, and Trustee Maura Sanders voting no on most items, and Township Supervisor Rob Manigold, Trustee Isaiah Wunsch, Trustee Warren Wahl, and Township Treasurer Brad Bickle voting yes on most items.
The approval of the development is contingent on several conditions, including: illustration of the watershed on the plans, storm piping for a 25-year period instead of a 10-year period, ditching of the cul-de-sac area to prevent overflow, and ditch flow capacity calculations.
The approval is also contingent on the establishment of a grading and stabilization plan, an arborist to oversee the possibility of oak wilt, and a third party consultant on site to ensure compliance and report back to the Township.
Before turning in a no vote on the project, Trustee Sanders noted, “The earth change, the accelerated soil erosion due to runoff and stormwater, not just rain, but snow – a couple years ago, the incredible amounts of snow that we had – what the snow does to the lakeshore, it’s fascinating, but it is very dangerous and there’s a place for homes to be built and there’s a place for homes not to be built.”
She added, “For this particular piece that we’re voting on and looking at, with best management practices and with all the expert advice, i’m going to rely on the Army Corps of Engineers, who I feel very comfortable with. There’s no way I could approve this, even with conditions. It is on too big of a scale and there’s way too much involved and at stake, not just the health, safety and welfare of the immediate residents, but also of our lakeshore, which we need to protect, because it is our neighbor, as well.”
As Trustee Wahl delivered his yes vote, he brought up other Peninsula Township developments that have not received the same level of scrutiny as The 81 project. “My biggest concern is that we have other properties in development here that have similar issues, and I don’t see us requiring any of this from them. I drive past one on the way to work every single day and I don’t see any silt sheet there, I don’t see them putting anything down, I see grading taking place every day, but we have no uproar there. I don’t understand why we’re concerned so much with one and not the other … I think this project, with all the issues available, given the remand that we are limited to, I think this is the best and appropriate way to go.”
Before voting yes, Township Supervisor Manigold noted, “I would like to go on record that this has been exhausting for everybody … if this had come before us [instead of the previous Township Board], I don’t think there’s any of us who would doubt this would be a totally different project. Mr. O’Grady actually told me that he wanted some vineyards in there. I don’t know why he was told no by the Township … but as we go through this thing, what we have done is our best with the narrow scope we’ve had to deal with, to make it safe for everybody … to look at our ordinance, we realize it’s been a learning experience, and a lot of things in our ordinance have to be beefed up so we can be better stewards of the land.”
And finally, before delivering her no vote, Township Clerk Westphal stated, “I’d like to just say over the years, I’ve trained over 2000 undergraduate students in landscape architecture and recreation resources to work competently in their fields and to have the confidence to challenge the status quo when the environment is challenged. I would be betraying the values of my profession and would cast myself in the role of a hypocrite to all those young professionals that I’ve trained over the 43 years that I’ve been in academia. And for that reason, my vote on this project is a no.”
SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper.
Because Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette
To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Disappointed but grateful for all of the thought the board gave to this project. Disagree with Trustee Wahl though. We hope and trust that every project has been scrutinized in such a way and if developers are not following good soil erosion practices, etc we trust that our board is on top of the problem and making sure the protections are followed. That’s why we put our trust in this board and voted out the previous board. Personally, I have zero trust of GT Soil Erosion. Even the road commission can be made to look the other way. Developers, by cheating just enough on set backs, cause the commission to look the other way because the commission lacks manpower, finances and the will to pursue developers in court. 7533 East Shore Road is a prime example and I’ve been told that by the road commission on that property.
Thanks to Jane for the very first reporting of this meeting even before local print and TV sources. To the Peninsula Twp board, thank you for struggling to reconsider the actions of the previous board. For those board members who voted for this development, I believe you will come to regret it when the negative environmental impact develops, the land and bay are harmed and the state closes down O’Grady. It is naive to believe that mitigating factors will control the damage this development will cause . ( ever heard of Murphy’s Law) . Every well organized plan fails in some way when executed. As an immediate neighbor, thanks for the increased risk to my family’s health and safety. We trusted in the process and we were disregarded.
Clearly, the Township must improve its ordinance to limit and define requirements for future development attempts. This is a loss for our community.
Thank you for this very timely info, Jane. Excellent reporting on the thoughts behind each vote.
Thank you Jane for a very detailed article. Still disappointed on the outcome.
Thanks for the article Jane. I am disappointed and unconvinced that there is not going to be a negative environmental fallout. I understand the Board was only able to approve a narrow scope of impact because of the previous Board’s approval. They were only allowed to consider what the judge questioned about the approval and could have opened the Township to a lawsuit by the developer. That being said it is my hope that we will not make the same mistake in the future. Urban sprawl is not a myth and is happening on the Peninsula. The taxes generated from these projects do not even begin to pay for their impact on: Recreation Amenities (Beaches, etc.), Roads, Fire, Police and infrastructure. We already seeing a significant strain on the entire community and at some point it will be up to the entire community to foot the bill from their wallets to correct.
Thanks for the article Jane. I am disappointed and unconvinced that there is not going to be a negative environmental fallout. I also sympathize with the surrounding neighborhood – I feel your pain. I understand that the Board was only able to approve a narrow scope of impact because of the previous Board’s approval. They were only allowed to consider what the judge questioned about the approval and could have opened the Township up to a lawsuit by the developer if they cited other reasons for denial. That being said it is my hope that we will not make the same mistake in the future. Urban sprawl is not a myth and is happening on the Peninsula. The taxes generated from these projects do not even begin to pay for their impact on: Recreation Amenities (Beaches, etc.), Roads, Fire, Police and infrastructure. We already seeing a significant strain on the entire community and resources. At some point it will be up to the entire community to foot the bill and open up their wallets to correct.
Thanks to those who voted NO on this “81” project. We are on a fragile peninsula, and the stress it can endure has limits. I strongly suggest and hope that revisions are made to the ordinance to prevent situations like this from happening again.
From Peninsula Township Planning Commissioner Monnie Peters (thank you!)…
A big thank-you goes to Jane for reporting this story accurately and on a very timely basis. The meeting was over about midnight and Jane had a well written story out in cyberspace shortly before 3:00 am. That is a job well done and a huge service to our community.
Monnie Peters
[…] a narrow vote of four to three, the Peninsula Township Board approved the SUP at a meeting on Dec. 12, […]
[…] – on property that the developer and Township previously agreed would be open space when the PUD was approved in […]