Zoning Board Approves Bluff Road Wetlands Variance Amid Resident Concerns

At this week’s meeting of the Peninsula Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), board members unanimously approved a wetlands variance for a new home under construction on Bluff Road, drawing concern from neighboring residents and environmental advocates who worry the decision could set a troubling precedent for development in sensitive ecological areas around the Old Mission Peninsula.

This is of particular concern along Bluff Road, where the north section of the road remains closed due to erosion issues, and other stretches of the road south to the Center Road intersection face serious stability concerns, including one area near the applicant’s property.

At the meeting, a public hearing was held for Wetlands Variance Request No. 927, submitted by Bay Area Contracting, Inc. on behalf of property owners Roger and Kelly McFall for a new residence at 12839 Bluff Road.

The applicants sought relief from Section 7.4.7(A)(1) and (2) Floodplain and Wetland Regulations of the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of an asphalt driveway within a designated wetland and its 25-foot setback. The site plan also includes a swimming pool.

Applicant’s Argument

The applicants argued that due to steep slopes, a creek that runs through the property, and associated wetlands separating the buildable area from Bluff Road, the proposed driveway location was the only practical access point to the new home. They noted that the driveway route follows a previously recorded easement corridor established during a 2024 land division, and that the design minimizes environmental disturbance by crossing at the narrowest section of the wetland.

The applicants also contended that the variance was not self-created, since the easement and driveway alignment were approved by the Township as part of the land division. They further stated that the Grand Traverse County Road Commission would not authorize a separate driveway directly from Bluff Road, leaving the wetland crossing as the only viable option.

Note that no letter from the Road Commission had been received at the time of this week’s meeting.

A Miscommunication About the Land Division

In a letter dated Oct. 7, 2025 from the applicant’s attorney, Marc S. McKellar of Kuhn Rogers PLC, he notes that the McFalls purchased the property in reliance upon an approved land division that included an access easement and driveway extending from the south, as well as a drainfield easement, as shown on the survey approved and recorded as part of that division.

“The Applicant was provided a copy of the recorded survey at the time of purchase and was informed by the seller and/or the seller’s agent that the division and access configuration had been approved by the Township and proceeded with the transaction based on that understanding,” wrote McKellar.

However, he added, “It has since been discovered, through communications between the Applicant’s current counsel (Kuhn Rogers PLC) and Township counsel, that although the Township approved the land division with those easements in place, it informed the seller that access might be required from Bluff Road due to the wetlands ordinance.

“This critical information was never conveyed by the seller to the Applicant who has since invested substantial time and resources in reliance on the approved configuration and recorded easements.”

Community Pushback

The variance request drew significant opposition from residents and environmental groups. The Township received a dozen letters from neighbors and advocates urging the ZBA to deny the variance.

Among them was Heather Smith, Grand Traverse Bay Waterkeeper with The Watershed Center of Grand Traverse Bay. In her letter, Smith warned that granting the variance would result in potential harm to environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, mature trees, and a robust creek that runs year-round through the property.

She argued that the variance application did not justify the proposed encroachments into the wetland setback for both the driveway and parking area. She suggested alternative designs, such as reconfiguring the garage or using an open-span bridge, which would avoid or reduce the impact.

She also contended that the proposed permeable parking area is unnecessary, not compliant with zoning rules, and represents a self-created hardship due to poor site design.

“This parcel contains numerous environmentally sensitive features including onsite wetlands, steep slopes, mature tree canopy, and a stream that borders the property,” wrote Smith. “We generally oppose variances from natural feature setbacks because they threaten environmentally sensitive areas. We firmly believe this application has not provided sufficient basis for the Board to determine that a variance is justified for the two separate, yet connected, encroachments into the wetland setback area: the proposed driveway and the parking area.”

She added that the parking area, which was not included in the wetlands variance request, should be examined, as well.

“Independent of the request for a variance to cross the wetland-stream complex, there is not compelling narrative why a large permeable parking area is also necessary and justifiable, and how this parking area meets all the Basic Conditions in Section 5.7.3(1). Parking areas, even if constructed of permeable materials, are not an allowable “development” or “modification” in section 7.4.7(A) … The need for a variance to create a parking area in a wetland setback is self-created by a poorly considered design.”

She commended Peninsula Township for creating the wetland setbacks amendment to the ordinance in 2018, but added, “The fact that the township only recently adopted the wetland setback provision that reflects your Master Plan is a compelling reason to require strict compliance before granting any variance from this provision.”

She noted that wetland functionality should not and need not be compromised to accommodate the challenging features of this resulting parcel. “To the extent the challenges associated with this parcel make it more difficult or costly to comply with the wetland setback requirements, it seems the property owner or its predecessor self-created those challenges.”

Read Heather Smith’s full letter here.

Why Have an Ordinance If You Don’t Follow It?

Neighboring residents expressed frustration that the decision might weaken enforcement of local environmental ordinances, setting a precedent for other wetland variances. And that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) never visited the site, but rather approved the construction details based on documents rather than an in-person inspection. EGLE’s permit allows the McFalls to place a 34-foot-long by 57-inch-wide 38-inch-tall culvert within the creek.

Wrote one neighbor to Peninsula Township Zoning Administrator Sara Kopriva ​after the meeting, “Why have an ordinance if you don’t follow it? This piece of property should never have been divided into a lot for the purpose of building a house. I assume you’ve walked this property and after doing that, I find it hard to believe that anyone would approve it. I know that EGLE did NOT actually come out to see this property. They approved the site based on pictures. I think they wouldn’t have said it was viable if they had seen it. Everyone on the board last night kept saying ‘that since EGLE approved the site…’ …like it was law.”

She added, “It is also very concerning that the septic is scheduled to go under the creek. Many of the homes on Bluff Road have holding tanks, this one should as well.”

Several letters from other neighbors raised similar concerns about tree removal, erosion, and the proposed septic system’s installation beneath a creek that runs through the property and empties into East Bay. They warned that the entire construction project could alter the natural stream flow, degrade wetlands throughout the property, result in septic flowing into the bay, and force neighbors to pay for erosion issues caused by the project.

A Question of Precedent

Residents cited past cases where the ZBA denied similar requests, including a 2023 wetlands variance on Kroupa Road. “Private convenience does not outweigh environmental stewardship,” one letter stated, urging the Township to “take a firm stance against attempts to bend local environmental rules.”

Others challenged the applicants’ claim of hardship, arguing that the property was purchased with full knowledge of its environmental constraints. “Acquiring land that is inherently and obviously challenging to build upon does not entitle a landowner to override established protections.”

ZBA Approves Wetlands Variance

Despite the opposition, the Zoning Board — including John Dolton, Larry Dloski, Wes Cowan, Kris Prescott and Scott Visger — unanimously approved the wetlands variance, allowing construction of the driveway across the wetland. The board’s decision followed a lengthy discussion of site conditions, access limitations, and applicable ordinance standards, along with no answers from Zoning Administrator Sara Kopriva when asked about other troubling aspects of the project like the septic system.

The ZBA’s approval of the wetlands variance marks another flashpoint in ongoing debates about balancing property rights with environmental protection on the Old Mission Peninsula. For some, it reflects a necessary accommodation to challenging terrain; for others, a step backward in the Township’s efforts to preserve its fragile ecosystems.

As one neighbor noted after the meeting, “Maybe a smaller home or a more thoughtful design could have avoided this entirely. Once we start building in wetlands, it’s hard to go back.”

What the Ordinance Says About Wetlands

Under Section 7.4.7 of the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance, wetlands are strictly protected areas defined as land that supports water-loving vegetation or aquatic life — such as bogs, swamps, or marshes.

Key rules include:

• No development, modification, or impervious surface (like driveways or parking lots) is allowed within 25 feet of a wetland.
• Any work within a wetland or its buffer requires permits from both the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and Peninsula Township.
• Limited exceptions exist for small boardwalks (3 feet wide or less) when approved by EGLE and the Township.
• Wetland boundaries must be verified by a state-certified wetland delineator if there is any doubt about their extent.

These regulations are designed to protect water quality, prevent erosion, and preserve wildlife habitat, ensuring that development on Old Mission Peninsula remains compatible with the area’s natural environment.