Results of the Leelanau County growth management forums Growth management plan working paper #1

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

KWULIS
OF T14E
LEELANAU COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUMS

February 12 - 22,1990

Growth Management Plan Worldng Paper #1

I t

Prepared by the
Leelanau County Planning Department
March 26,1990

This Document is
Printed on Recycled Paper

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I UWhen you have no experience, you donut know what can't be done"
I - Jeffre Silverman
I -
I
I
I
1 10
GI-
I \(T-
10
I E
I k-o
I Cq)
1@@Q
I

LEELANAU COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUMS

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKING PAPER NUMBER ONE

Table of Contents

Leelanau County Board of Commissioners ...................... iii

Leelanau County Planning commission ......................... iii

Leelanau County Comprehensive Development Plan
Citizen Advisory Committee ............................. iii

Leelanau County Comprehensive Development Plan
Project Staff.... *0*..6* .. 000.00 ... 90-060AV

Introduction ....

Analytical

Executive

Forum Results ..... 000.00*..* ....... 000.0000.000-0 .. 06-0 ... 10
How is Leelanau County Changing as a
Result of Growth?.. ........ o....................... 10
Where are Growth Changes Taking Place
in Leelanau County? ................ o.......... o .... 15
What Problems are Associated with this
New Growth? .................................... o... 18
Where are these Problems Located?........ ........... o... 23
What are the Causes of these Problems? .................. 27
Why are You Concerned? .............. o ................... 31

Conclusions. ..... o .......... o......

Appendix One - Leelanau County Comprehensive
Development Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
Trend Analysis ................................. o.... o.o.38
Economic Base .............................. j ........ o... 39
Transportation ........................... o .......... o... 40
Natural Resources ...... o................. o .............. 41
Solid Waste Management ................... o ...... o... o... 42
Water and Waste Water ............... o ............ o ...... 43
Community Facilities and Services ....... o........... o.o.44
Intergovernmental Relations ... o.......... o ....... ---45
Recreation ..................... j ......... o .......... o... 46
Housing.. ......... o ............. o... o ....o.............. 47
Land Use Planning / Regulation. ......................... 48

Table of Contents (Cont'd.)

Appendix Two - Raw Data ...................................... 49
Combined Participant List ....... o ....................... so
Business and Industry Forum ............................. 53
Environmental Interests .................. o .............. 56
Agricultural Interests .................................. 60
Local Government Officials ............. o ................ 64
General Public ............................. o ............ 68
senior citizens
Lake Leelanau ...................................... 72
Cedar - Maple City ................................. 75
Suttons Bay ........................................ 78
Empire ......o ...................................... 81
Northport ............. ............................ 84

LEELANAU COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Otto Mork Philip E. Deering
(Chairman) (Vice Chairman)

Kathleen B. Firestone Donald W. Mitchell
John A. (Jack) Gallagher Joseph F. Brzezinski
John D. Stanek

LEELANAU COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION

William Mateer Dana MacLellan
(Chairman) (Vice Chairperson)

Merle Bredehoeft Margot Power
Jack Burton John Rockershousen
John (Jack) Gallagher Richard (Rick) N. Stein
Steve Kalchik James Stelt
Lawrence Verdier

LEELANAU COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

John McGettrick Ben Whitfield
(Chairman) (Vice Chairman)

John April Jack Mobley
Nancy Arkin Dave L. Monstrey
John Avis Otto Mork
Jack Burton Karen Nielsen
Stephen C. Chambers Glen M. Noonan
Thomas Coleman Sandra Peschel
Phil Deering Margot Power
Judith M. Egeler Kimberly K. Schopieray
Jack Gallagher Chris Shafer
Carl B. Headland Derith A. Smith
Beverly A. Heinz Mitsume Takayama
Steve Kalchik John P. VanRaalte
Stuart Kogge Tom VanZoeren
Lawrence Mawby David Viskochil
Bill Mateer Richard N. Wilson

LEELANAU COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROJECT STAFF

Timothy J. Dolehanty Duane C. Beard
County Planning Director County Coordinator

Trudy J. Galla Pat Stratton
Assistant Planner County Board Secretary

Joyce Pleva
Planning Department Secretary

PROJECT CONSULTANT

Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP, President
Planning and Zoning Center

INTRODUCTION

This document is the first of a series of working papers prepared
by Leelanau County staff members as part of the process to
update/revise the Leelanau County Comprehensive Development Plan.
Working Paper Number one summarizes and provides an analysis of a
series of ten (10) Growth Management Forums conducted throughout
Leelanau County on December 1, 1989 and during the month of
February, 1990. The guiding objective of Phase I of the Leelanau
County Comprehensive Development Plan update/revision process is
the identification of what has been termed the 11best choice growth
management approach" for Leelanau County.

This working paper is intended to provide a partial basis for
discussion by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Leelanau
County Planning Commission and the Leelanau County Board of
Commissioners as they investigate, discuss and deliberate upon
growth management issues in Leelanau County.

The Growth Management Forums can best be understood when placed in
the perspective of the overall comprehensive plan update project.
In Phase I the county is seeking to develop the 11best choice growth
management process1l. The methodology which will be used to achieve
definition of the "best choice process" will consist of three (3)
major efforts. These efforts include citizen participation,
identification of state-of-the-art planning/growth management
technologies, and review of statutory/constitutional framework for
growth management in the State of Michigan.

The first major effort in Phase I will be an intense initiative in
the area of citizen participation. The citizen participation
process will endeavor to identify a broad spectrum of thoughts,
opinions, aspirations and fears of Leelanau County citizens
pertaining to the development process. Citizen participation will
be solicited through three (3) primary vehicles.

1) Citizens Advisory Committee - a Planning Commission / County
Board subcommittee comprised of more than 30 citizens broadly
representative of the geographic and functional interest of
the county.

2) Growth Management Forums - a series of public meetings which
will involve systematic querying of identifiable interest
groups in the county.

3) Public opinion Survey - an independently conducted,
scientific, random sample survey of county citizens on a broad
spectrum of development issues, problems and opportunities.
A corollary public opinion survey of local elected officials
and appointed planning officials will also be conducted as
part of the public opinion survey process.

The second major effort in Phase I will be identification of the
state-of-the-art of local government planning/growth management
techniques. This aspect of Phase I will involve research by county
staf f members into success ful/repl icable planning/growth management
efforts from around the state and nation. Principally, this task
will be accomplished by working with the American Planning
Association (APA) and the Michigan Society of Planning Officials
(MSPO). It will also consist of interactions between county staff
and the CAC with suitably qualified technical advisors. The
primary "outside expert" consulted throughout this project will be
Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP, President of the Planning and Zoning center
and publisher of Planning and Zoning News. Mark is well respected
throughout Michigan and the nation as a serious, capable and
innovative practitioner of successful growth management at the
local level. Mark will provide technical assistance to the overall
project and will specifically interact with County staff and the
CAC on the topic of state-of-the-art planning in Michigan.

A third major effort in Phase I will consist of a thorough*review
of the statutory and constitutional framework for growth management
in the state of Michigan. The end product of this effort will be
a carefully determined definition for the. CAC, the Leelanau County
Planning Commission, and the Board of Commissioners outlining the
provisions of the various laws concerning growth management in the
State of Michigan. In effect, this effort is an inventory of the
growth management techniques and measures legally available to the
county and local governments in Leelanau County. Principle
advisors in this process will be Gerald A. Fisher and Mark A.
Wyckoff. Mr. Fisher is an attorney with the firm Kohl, Secrest,
Wardle, Lynch, Clark and Hampton of Farmington Hills and has an
active practice in growth management issues. He is currently
working with a coalition of local governments in Oakland County who
are intent upon developing a workable approach to growth management
in that rapidly growing county. Mr. Fisher's effort with the local
governments in Oakland County (and possibly Leelanau County) may
also result in some specific proposals for legislative reform in
the State of Michigan.

In the end, when the three (3) major efforts described above have
been completed and the results are compiled and analyzed, the CAC
will be tasked with formulating findings and recommendations to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners for the "best
choice growth management process'$ for Leelanau County.

Implicit in the charge to the CAC to develop a best choice growth
management approach is that such an approach be, in the f irst
instance, an intergovernmental approach. This conclusion is drawn
in recognition of the fact that, at present, there are f ifteen (15)
units of government engaged in growth management activities (i.e.
planning, zoning, development regulation, etc.) in Leelanau County.
The governmental units include eleven (11) townships, three (3)
villages, and one (1) county. The recent annexation of part of
Elmwood Township to the City of Traverse City will result in a
sixteenth (16th) unit of government independently attempting to
manage growth within the boundaries of Leelanau County. An axiom
of the comprehensive plan update/revision process is that a sound
and consistent approach supported by all local governments within
the county, each with well defined roles and responsibilities, is
the optimum approach to growth management.

At the end of Phase I, the work program adopted by the Planning
commission and Board of commissioners calls for a "Go/ No GoU
decision. To make that decision more explicit, the Go/ No Go
@ecision is really a decision as to the feasibility of
implementation of an overall intergovernmental approach to growth
management. The Go/ No Go decision is proposed to be based on a
growth management process which is formally acceptable to 80% or
more of the local governments in the county. This acceptance is
proposed to be evidenced by a signed agreement, which is binding
upon all signatories, as to the approach to be used for growth
management. However, in the event it proves impossible to develop
and secure formal acceptance of such a process, then, at the end
of Phase I, the county will be faced with the necessity of
determining how best to approach the area of growth management
solely from a county policy basis.

What is a Growth Management Forum? A Growth Management Forum,
within the context of Phase I of the Leelanau County Comprehensive
Development Plan update/revision processf is a citizen
participation meeting of approximately 2 1/2 hours duration. The
meetings were publicly advertised and used a standard format to
facilitate comparison of responses. The growth management forums
were open to the general public but were specifically targeted to
a number of identifiable major interest groups in the county. The
growth management forums were conducted by county personnel and
guest facilitators. The forums were co-sponsored by, an
organization related to the target interest group for the
particular forum to further encourage participation. In all, 10
forums were held as follows:

Business and Industry - Co-Sponsored by the Chamber of
Commerce, facilitated by George McKay, former Executive
Director of the Chamber of Commerce
February 12, 1990, Leland Volunteer Fire Department

Environmental Interests - Co-Sponsored by Northern
Michigan Environmental Action Council, facilitated by Mark
Breederland, Environmental Programs Coordinator, Northwest
Michigan Council Of Governments.
February 14, 1990, Empire Town Hall

� Agriculture - Co-Sponsored by the Leelanau County
Cooperative Extension service, facilitated by
James Bardenhagen, Co-operative Extension Director
February 19, 1990, Elmwood Township Center

� Local Government - Co-Sponsored by the Leelanau County
Chapter of the Michigan Townships Association (MTA) ,
facilitated by Elaine Wood, Deputy Director of Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments
February 20, 1990, Bingham Schoolhouse

� General Public - Co-Sponsored by the Leelanau Conservancy,
facilitated by Brian Price, Manager Leelanau Conservancy
February 21, 1990, Omena Fire Hall

In addition, five (5) "mini-forums" were held at regular senior
citizen meeting events throughout Leelanau County. These I'mini-
forums", co-sponsored by the Leelanau County Commission on Aging
and facilitated by county staff, were held as follows:

� Lake Leelanau Fire Department Hall
February 12, 1990

� Cedar/Maple City Lions Club
February 14, 1990

� Suttons Bay Fire Department Hall
February 16, 1990

� Empire Township Hall
February 20, 1990

� Trinity Lutheran Church-Northport
February 22, 1990

A standard format was utilized for each forum. This format
culminated in citizen identification of a number of aspects in a
wide range of growth related issues concerning Leelanau County.
The agenda for each forum was designed to assure at least a minimum
common information base concerning development trends in Leelanau
County. The agenda also included a brief explanation of the
overall comprehensive plan update process, a training video aimed
at stimulating creative brainstorming about the future,' I and a

The video was not presented at the "mini-forums".

series of specific items of information concerning current growth
trends and growth management policies currently in place in the
County. As stated earlier, the final aspect of the forum was a
group participation process using a standard battery of questions.
These questions were based on an analytical approach utilized by
Mark A. Wyckoff, technical advisor, during the initial "kick-off
seminar" conducted by the CAC at the initiation of Phase I of the
comprehensive plan update process.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

It is acknowledged at the outset that there is some art and some
science involved in every attempt by a group of citizens or a
community to create its future. The analytical approach used for
the Leelanau County Growth Management Forums is more descriptive
and qualitative than quantitative. Value judgements have been made
throughout the process both by the citizens who participated in the
Growth Management Forums and by the staff people establishing and
implementing the analytical approach. It is acknowledged that it
is certainly possible that one's "point-of -view" may influence the
conclusions drawn from the Growth Management Forums conducted in
Leelanau County. For this reason, in addition to the brief
analysis contained in the main body of this report, the "raw
information" collected at each Growth Management Forum is included
in the appendices to this document. Inclusion of the raw
information will facilitate independent review by a reader wishing
to validate his/her own perceptions as to the conclusions drawn in
the analytical section.

A preliminary draft of this working paper was presented to the CAC
at their February 26, 1990 meeting. Members of the CAC were broken
into subgroups and assigned to one of ten (10) "functional areas".
Each group was asked to identify trends in their functional areas
based on the data collected at the Growth Management Forums. The
CAC's conclusions are included in the appendices of this document.
The functional areas assigned to the CAC were economic base,
transportationt natural resources, solid waste management, water
and waste water, community facilities and services,
intergovernmental relations, recreation, housing, and land use
planning/regulation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June, 1989 Leelanau County officially began a project designed
to revise its outdated Comprehensive Development Plan. County
officials agree the Plan currently in effect, adopted in 1975, does
not provide adequate guidance for today's decisions. During the
past several years development-related controversies have flared
in virtually all areas of the County. County officials and an
increasing number of permanent and seasonal residents believe those
controversies are due, in part, to the lack of an overall "planot
or system for dealing with the management of the growth that is
occurring. The County's popularity and desirable location are
contributing to the problem. Increasing population and
inadequately directed growth have great potential to exert
significant pressure on the "quality of life" which has
historically been Leelanau County's hallmark.

When considering this essential planning project, County leaders
saw an opportunity to approach comprehensive planning in a unique
way. The traditional approach to community planning assumes an
internal effort by the responsible governing agency. Generally
speaking, this approach often means less risk, less chance for
criticism and opposition from administrators or elected officials.
As stated in the text Taking Charge: How Communities are Planning
their Futures, the newer, more open approaches (such as that being
undertaken in Leelanau County) bring to the planning effort the
combined resources of the community - both public and private.
These strategies require new management approaches and techniques.
Progress is made by consensus rather than by directive. Those
involved in managing the project master new methods of leadership,
taking risks by giving up some traditional control but increasing
the likelihood of positive community support and benefit.

Ideally, this technique would involve all of the local units of
government in the County in a consistent, integrated approach to
growth management. The County leaders steering this effort believe
the best way to accomplish this goal is to involve as many County
citizens as possible in the actual thinking process.

Involving people in the planning process means acknowledging that
everyone has something of value to contribute. This system seeks
to avoid setting up citizens, developers, environmentalists, or
local governments as "the enemy". Recognition of this fundamental
can change the dynamics of growth management from "us against them"
to "we're all in this together".

Those involved in planning realize a successful community planning
program does not simply "happen". Project supporters must develop
an understanding of growth policies as they currently exist. They
must also be willing to communicate their concerns and ideas, work
with anyone else officially or unofficially associated with the
plan, and be willing to develop an understanding with fellow
citizens regarding issues of conflict.

With all of these points in mind, Leelanau County co-sponsored a
series of "Growth Management Forums". The Forums, held on December
1, 1989 and February 12 through 21, 1990, focussed on current
growth management policies and citizen opinions concerning the
future of the County. Though all sessions were open to the public,
each concentrated on the opinions of a particular group of
citizens. Several organizations committed to co-sponsoring these
@orums in an attempt to maximize public participation. The groups
involved included the Leelanau County Chamber of Commerce, the
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Northern
Michigan Environmental Action Council (NMEAC), the Leelanau County
Cooperative Extension Service, the Leelanau County Chapter of the
Michigan Townships Association, the Leelanau Conservancy, and the
Leelanau County Commission on Aging.

A series of six (6) questions were asked of Forum participants.
These questions were based on an analytical approach utilized by
Mark A. Wyckoff, technical advisor, during the initial "kick-off
seminar" conducted by the CAC at the initiation of Phase I of the
comprehensive plan update process. Those questions are as follows:

Is Leelanau County changing as a result of growth? If yes,
how?

0 Where are growth changes taking place in Leelanau County?

0 Are there problems associated with this new growth? If yes,
what are they?

0 Where are these problems associated with growth located?

- What are the causes of these problems?

0 Are you concerned? If yes, Why?

The responses to these questions were recorded on transparencies
as they were received and were projected onto a wide screen. Those
responses and the analysis that followed are the subject of Working
Paper Number One.

Participation in the Forums was exceptional. A total of 269
individuals chose to partake in this unique event with many
individuals choosing to attend more than one Forum. Many trends

became clear through this process. In analyzing these trends, the
following conclusions can be drawn:

- Many Leelanau County citizens f rom all walks of
life, public and private, feel that Leelanau County
is changing as a result of growth.

- Although growth related changes are wide spread
-geographically and uneven in impact, definable
areas in the county are under perceptively greater
development pressure, i.e. a) unique natural
features-water frontage, view amenity areas, etc.
b) arterial transportation corridors c) areas
proximate to Traverse City.

- Many problems are perceived to be associated with
this new growth and the problem areas can be
identified both geographically and functionally.

- The causes of many of the perceived problems are
identifiable. Some of the problems are susceptible
to local initiatives directed at the underlying
causes. Other problems have causes beyond the
borders of the County of Leelanau and thus, only
the local manifestations of the problem, i.e.
symptoms can be dealt with locally.

- Many county citizens and property owners are highly
concerned about the problems they perceive to be
associated with changes in the county as a result
of growth.

- Opportunity exists for sound, carefully designed
growth management initiatives by local government
in Leelanau County. Care and caution must be
exercised in such initiatives, as by most
indicators local government (County, Townships,
Villages) performance to date is not impressive.
The credibility of local governments as growth
managers is an issue. Diverse viewpoints, powerful
market forces and a history of functionally/ legally
fragmented efforts mitigate against the creation
and sustained implementation of a coherent growth
management approach.

In all probability the only factor which can
guarantee the long term success of a growth
management policy is a well informed and highly
activist citizenry which demands nothing less of
its local officials.

The compiled results of the entire series of Growth Management
Forums will be utilized by the Leelanau County Comprehensive
Development Plan Citizens Advisory Committee in formulating its
"best choice" growth management approach to be presented to the
County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners.

HOW IS LEELMAU COUWTY CHMGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

There was unanimous agreement among all Growth Management Forum
participants that Leelanau County was, in fact, changing as a
result of growth. This fact came as a surprise to no one. Public
perception of how the County is changing is important in that
responses offer insight as to what the most visible .changes in the
County are. These changes could be classified as "high-profile"
in terms of their visibility.

Responses to the question of "how" the County is changing were
varied, however they can be grouped into eleven (11) "frequency
categories". In descending order, the most frequent response
categories were:

1. Traffic Concerns
2. Pollution Issues
3. Increasing Population
4. Building Issues
5. Increasing Tax Rates
6. Service Levels
7. Agricultural Issues
8. Employment Issues
9. (tie) Affordable Housing Availability
Crime Increases
Increased Commercialization
10. Environmental Conditions
11. Other

Further examination of the frequency categories offers the
following analysis.

1. Traffic Concerns

National trends indicate it is common to have the traffic
category appear at or toward the "top of the list" when
considering the need for modified growth management practices,
and Leelanau County is no exception. Traffic issues were
listed among the top five (5) responses in seven (7) of the
ten (10) Growth Management Forums.

The "traffic concerns" category includes all issues related
to "traffic". The number of vehicles using Leelanau County
roads was the common concern of the participants, however road

conditions and increasing conflicts between motorized and non-
motorized transportation modes were also mentioned.
Specifically, competition between cars and bicyclists was
expressed (environmental interests) as was increasing conflict
between cars and pedestrians (general public).

2. Pollution Issues

Though general pollution was cited as a way the County was
changing at many of the f orums, water pollution and water
contamination concerns were listed most frequently. The
former Leelanau County Landfill was specifically referred to
as a contamination source, although it was generally
recognized that all f orms of groundwater contamination were
increasing. The general decline of our surface water
resources, mostly through "overuse" of the County's lakes,
was also cited.

other types of pollution, including light pollution (general
public), were cited as other indicators of change.

3. Increasing Population

The increase in the County's population was listed at each
forum as a major way the County has changed. The impacts of
the increased population on school districts was commonly
discussed, as was the substantial increase in tourists in
recent years. The number of transient (seasonal) residents
and impact of their numbers was briefly discussed as well,
(environmental concerns forum)

4. Building issues

Overall building in Leelanau County was offered as an
indicator of change at the forums. Such building patterns as
"strip development" (environmental concerns, senior'citizens) ,
"waterfront development" (environmental concerns),
"subdivisions" (general public), and "resort and retirement
building" (senior citizens) were discussed. The local
government forum saw the increased use of pole buildings
mentioned as a growth-related change. Local government and
environmental concern participants agreed that condominium
development also represents a significant change in building
pattern.

Increasing Tax Rates

Although this was a frequently mentioned category, tax issues
were not indicated as a type of change at the local government
forum, environmental concerns forum, or at two (2) of the
senior citizen forums. Actual dollars paid in local taxes and
increasing property assessments were the most common topics
cited. Comparatively less government-sponsored services per
tax dollar was a common concern among participants. This
topic will be more fully addressed in the succeeding
paragraph.

Service Levels

Though one senior citizen forum (Suttons Bay) and the local
government forum did not list this subject area as a way the
County was changing, there is no doubt it is on the mind of
many citizens. Expectations of government was frequently
discussed among participants in that many who visit Leelanau
County or are new residents assume "big city" types of
services are available in the County. Impacts on volunteer
fire and rescue, the apparent need for sewer servicei and the
costs of all these services were topics most often discussed.

7. Agricultural Issues

The continuing loss of agricultural land was indicated as a
major change in County appearance by those participating in-
forums targeted at business and industry, environmental
concerns, agricultural interests, and senior citizens. Many
participating in the agricultural interests forum also cited
increasing conflicts between residential uses and agricultural
uses as a way the county was changing.

a. Employment Issues

Senior citizens commonly cited the lack of jobs as a way the
County has changed. Young people leaving the County was
mentioned as a direct result of this change. The remaining
jobs, according to many of the senior citizen participants,
are low paying and do not provide enough income for the
average family. The change in the type of jobs available was
discussed at the senior citizen and environmental interest
forums. The shift to low-paying "tourism-related" jobs was
the common tie.

9. (tie) Affordable Housing Availability
Crime Increases
Increased commercialization

Affordable Housing Availability

Senior citizen participants frequently talked about this
issue. Specifically, the lack of and need for senior citizen
housing was discussed. overall housing needs of county
residents was often cited when discussing low-paying jobs,
indicating a citizen awareness of how the two subjects are
interrelated.

Crime Increases

Citizens attending the business and industry, environmental
interests, and senior citizen sessions agreed the increase in
crime and drug use were areas of change in the County.

Increased Commercialization

Increased commercialization of the County, particularly where
resorts (Sugarloaf, Homestead, etc.) and the Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore are concerned, is causing change in
the County according to those attending the environmental
interest, local government, and senior citizen forums. The
general public session indicated parking problems resulting
from commercialization were also an issue.

10. Environmental Conditions

Environmental changes exclusive of those directly tied to
water were cited by those attending the environmental c6ncern
and senior citizen sessions. Pressures on the environment
were specifically mentioned as was the decline in aesthetics.
Decline in Wetland acreage was also mentioned at these
sessions.

11. Other

Other noted changes in the County.included:
- Increase in solid waste (agricultural interests, senior
citizens)
- Increase in conflicts and hostilities between those
favoring development and those opposed to it (environmental

interests, general public)
- Declining amount of land "available" to the general public
(general public, senior citizens)
- Increase in recreational attractiveness (environmental
interests, senior citizens)
- Decrease in open space (general public)
- Cost of living increases (senior citizens)
- Total number of golf courses (senior citizens)

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

When responding to the question of where growth changes were taking
place, the forum participants cited many common places. The most
common are grouped into the five (5) "frequency categories" listed
below. The sixth category lists those responses least frequently
given. In descending order, the most frequent response categories
were:

1. (tie) Villages (non-specific),
Roads
2. Lakes and lakeshores
3. (tie) View properties,
Recreation and resort areas
4. (tie) Schools,
Elmwood Township
5. Multiple-family Dwellings
6. Other

Further examination of these -frequency categories offers the
following analysis:

1. (tie) Villages (non-specific)
Roads

Villages (non-specific)

All of the forums listed non-specific villages and the road
system as places of change in Leelanau County. Peshawbestown
was the only "village" specifically mentioned at more than one
forum. The decline of the Cedar business district was
specifically cited one time (senior citizens). The
participants of the general public forum expressed concern
about the business area immediately south of Suttons Bay
becoming a new "village" area.

Roads

There was a great variety in specific roads mentioned as being
locations of change. Many of those mentioned were unique to
the location of individual forums. The M-22 corridor between

Suttons Bay and Traverse City was the most regularly mentioned
stretch of roadway. In fact, every session saw it mentioned
at least one time. Though not mentioned as often as M-22, the
M-72 corridor through the southern tier of Leelanau County
Townships was frequently mentioned.

2. Lakes and lakeshores

Running a close second to the above areas, the lakes and
lakeshores were listed as changing considerably. As was the
case in the prior topic areas, lake and lakeshore areas were
listed at all of the forums as areas seeing changes resulting
from growth.

3. (tie) View Properties
Recreation and Resort Areas

View Properties

Leelanau County's view property was unanimously listed as an
area seeing significant growth-related change. View
properties were mentioned at least one time at each forum.

Recreation and Resort Are4s

The local government forum participants did not list
recreation and resort areas as places where growth is taking
place, but they were listed at each of the other sessions.
Recreation and resort areas were def ined as including both
public and private recreation facilities.

4. (tie) schools
Elmwood Township

Schools

Schools were identified by agricultural interests and senior
citizens as having a significant amount of change, mainly in
the area of total enrollment. The Northport Schools were
cited as the only school experiencing a drop in enrollment.
All others were said to be experiencing significant increases
in enrollment.

Elmwood Township

Elmwood Township was cited as changing by those attending the
business and industry, agricultural interests and senior
citizen forums. Comments heard were similar to those
associated with villages.

S. Multiple-family Dwellings

Primarily with regard to their increased numbers, multiple-
family dwellings were listed as areas of change. The
increased number of condominiums and apartments was commonly
cited, especially the York Apartments at the Fort Road/M-22
intersection in Bingham Township and condominium development
at the Homestead, Sugar Loaf, and the village of Suttons Bay.
Multiple-family dwelling areas were listed as an area of
change by those attending the business and industry,
agricultural interests and senior citizen forums.

6. Other

other places where growth changes were said to be occurring
include, by forum:

senior citizens: Farm fringe areas, golf courses,
Leelanau Memorial Hospital, Leelanau Township, rural
areas, and wooded areas.

Environmental Interests: The islands.

Business and Industry: All areas within fifteen (15)
miles of Traverse City.

WHAT PROBLEMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

Generally speaking, participants in the growth management f orums
had no difficulty in listing problems associated with new growth.
Similarity in some of those problems cited was surprising, however.
For purposes of this analysis, the responses are grouped into ten
(10) frequency categories. In descending order, the most frequent
response categories were:

1. Traffic
2. Pressure on and demand for services
3. Local planning and growth control measures
4. (tie) Water issues
Taxes
5. (tie) Sewage disposal
Crime
6. (tie) Solid waste disposal
Agricultural issues
Economic Base issues
7. (tie) Affordable housing
Schools
Property access
8. (tie) Pollution problems
Lack of public meeting places
9. (tie) Hostilities and conflicts
Recreational overcrowding
10. Other

Further examination of the frequency categories offers the
following analysis:

1. Traffic

Traffic, as it was with the past questions, was unanimously
chosen at all forums as a problem associated with growth.
Topics associated with traf f ic incorporated road maintenance,
traffic volume, and safety concerns.

2. Pressure on and demand for services

An acute awareness of the expectations of "out-of-town"
visitors and new residents was expressed. Visitors and new
residents assuming the availability of services similar to

what is available in metropolitan areas was considered a
serious problem associated with the growth of the county This
issue was a consensus item at all forums. The mounting
pressures on the local volunteer fire and rescue squads was
reported by the agricultural interests forum. General public
participants cited the need for new utilities as a problem.
Those attending the environmental interests forum expressed
concern over the general decline in overall services provided
by local governments. Finally, senior citizens expressed
concerns over inadequate public transportation.

3. Local planning and growth control measures

In the context of a problem "area", local planning and growth
control measures were largely said to be inadequate for the
Leelanau County situation. The environmental interests forum
related a lack of overall planning to this issue. The local
government forum participants said the failure of zoning was
a contributing factor to this problem, and those attending the
general public forum indicated pressures to build outside
established village areas (sprawl, leap-frogging) have
contributed to this perception.

4. (tie) Water issues
Taxes

Water Issues

Water issues associated with growth were cited at all but the
business and industry forum. Discussion centered primarily
on water quality (surface and ground water) and surface water
use. The pressures placed on water resources are mounting,
according to forum participants.

Taxes

The agricultural interests and local government forums were
the only two where tax issues were not listed as a problem
associated with new growth. The continuing increase in taxes
and increased property assessments were common remarks.

5. (tie) Sewage disposal
crime

Sewage Disposal

The only forum where sewage disposal problems were not
mentioned was the environmental interests forum. A need for
adequate sewage disposal systems to deal with the growth rate
being experienced in Leelanau County was a common topic of
discussion among participants.

Crime

Agricultural interest and senior citizen participants each
listed an increase in crime as a problem associated with
growth. Jail overcrowding was said to be proof of this
statement.

6. (tie) Solid waste disposal
Agricultural issues
Economic base issues
Environment and aesthetics

Solid Waste DisROsal

Though mentioned only once at'each forum, solid waste issues
were unanimously listed as problems related to growth. The
senior citizens cited the need for an increased recycling
program to account for the increased population. General
disposal of solid waste was reported at all other forums.

Agricultural issues

Agricultural issues were referred to by those attending the
environmental interests, agricultural interests, and general
public forums. Loss of agricultural lands was specified at
the general public forum. The agricultural interests noted
increasing conflicts between agricultural land uses and
residential land uses as an immediate problem.

Economic Base

Oddly, all forums but business and industry listed the
County's economic base in responding to this question. The
need for better jobs, higher wages, and more industry were
commonly discussed. Some attending the senior citizens forums
went so far as to cite the need for more restaurants in the
County.

Environment and Aesthetics

Environment and aesthetic issues were frequently acknowledged,
but not unanimously. only the business and industry,
environmental interests, agricultural interests, and general
public forums expressed this view. Those attending the
business and industry forum made note of pressures on wildlife
habitat as well.

7. (tie) Affordable housing
Schools
Property access

Affordable Housing

The lack of affordable housing was listed as an issue at the
environmental interests, agricultural interests, and senior
citizens forums. Senior citizens expressed primary concern
over the lack of affordable senior citizen housing.

Schools

Growth impacts on local schools were referred to at all but
the senior citizen forums. The primary concern here was
overcrowding of school facilities.

Property Access

Forums targeted at business and industry and agricultural
interests answered this question in terms of private property
access. Continuing conflicts with trespassers was a common
explanation. The growing.population was said to be directly
associated with the trespassing problem.

a. (tie) Pollution
Lack of public meeting places

Pollution

Pollution problems were given attention at the business and
industry and general public forums. This discussion included
all forms of pollution including air, noise, water, etc.

Lack of Public Meeting Plgces

The problems associated with a lack of meeting places was one
unique to those attending the senior citizens forums. Concern
.centered around the County's lack of a "Senior Citizens
Center" in contrast to surrounding counties.

9. (tie) Hostilities'and conflicts
Recreational overcrowding

Hostilities

Hostilities and conflicts were mentioned at forums targeting
environmental interests and the general public. Conflicts
between agricultural uses and residential uses were again
mentioned. Hostilities between pro-development forces and
anti-development forces were also reported.

Recreational overcrowding

overcrowding and a general lack of public recreation space
was given attention at the environmental interests and senior
citizens forums.

10. Other

miscellaneous issues reported at the individual forums were
as follows:

Business and industry: Population densities
Environmental interests: Infrastructure needs;
Decreasing quality of life
Local government: Demands on local public official
including time and expertise
General public: Income gap among County residents

WHERE ARE THESE GROWTH PROBLEMS LOCATED?

When responding to the question of where growth problems are
located in Leelanau County, the forum participants cited many
common places. This question differs in that it asks where the
growth problems are located and is not associated with where the
growth is. The most common are grouped into the seven (7)
"frequency categories" listed below. The seventh category lists
those responses least frequently given. In descending order, the
most frequent response categories were:

1. Transportation System
2. Villages (non-specific)
3. (tie) Lakes and Shorelines
Local Government Organization
4. Agricultural Areas
5. Pollution
6. (tie) Schools
Traverse City Area
Housing
Townships (non-specific)
7. Other Septic and Sewer

Further examination of these frequency categories offers the
following analysis:

1. Transportation system

All of the forums listed the transportation system as an area
where growth problems are located in Leelanau County. This
includes all aspects of the transportation system such as road
capacity, road maintenance, road shoulders, etc. The
participants at the senior citizen forums also. expressed
concern about loading and unloading areas and insufficient
space on the roads to handle the large vehicles associated
with loading and unloading..

2. Villages (non-specific)

All of the f orums, with the exception of the environmental
interests forum, listed villages as a location for growth
problems. Included in this category, though not officially
livillages", include all settlements in the county.

3. (tie) Lakes and Shorelines
Local Government Organization

Lakes and Shorelines

It was unanimous among all the forums that the Lakes and
Shoreline are sites where growth problems are located. The
environmental interests forum specifically noted keyholing
issues. Septic systems located near lakes were also
mentioned.

Local Government Organization

The environmental interests forum listed "appointed officials
responsible f or zoning" as a location of growth problems. The
general public forum participants cited "the inability of
local government to get organized" where growth issues are
concerned as a problem. The general public participants also
stated "local government is concentrating on high profile
projects and neglecting the rest", which in turn lessens its
overall effectiveness.

4. Agricultural Areas

Most forums saw agricultural areas listed as areas where
growth problems are located. The exceptions were the
agricultural interests forum and the senior citizen forums.
Among specific answers given in response to this question was
the "decline in farmland" noted by the participants at the
environmental forum. The general public forum participants
listed "failure to support the agricultural industry" as an
issue.

5. Pollution

The governmental forum was the only forum that listed
pollution as an area where growth problems were located. This
subject includes many responses listing specific types of
pollution including light and noise.

6. (tie) Schools
Traverse City Area
Housing
Townships (non-specific)
Septic and Sever

Schools

Among the five (5) responses that tied for this position was
schools listed at the agricultural, governmental and senior
citizens forums. Agricultural interests participants
specifically listed loss of tax base to Indian Reservation and
the National Park Service as a contributing f actor to this
problem.

Traverse City Area

The Traverse City Area was cited as a location of growth
problems by the business and industry f orum. and also the
government forum participants.

Housing

Housing was listed by the agricultural interests and general
public forums. Again, the general lack of affordable housing
was the center of discussion.

Townships (non-specific)

senior citizen forum participants felt the townships were home
to growth problems. No specific township stood out among the
eleven.

SeRtic and Sewer

Among the responses offered to this question by senior citizen
forum participants, the area of sewage disposal was cause for
concern. Failing septic systems, especially near lakeshores,
and the overall lack of sewage systems in the more populated
areas were given specific attention.

7. other

Other places where growth problems were said to be located
include, by forum:

Business and Industry: Solid Waste disposal areas
Agricultural interests: General county; view property;
tax base decline (loss to National Park Service, etc.)
Local Government: Taxing structure
General Public: Competing values; Cost of Living;
Development Intensity; Forces external to county
Senior Citizens: Churches; Fire and Police Protection;
Leelanau Memorial Hospital; Old Settlers Park; Rural
Areas; Tourist Train; Water Wells

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

Though sometimes difficult to recognize, the growth management
forum participants were able to identify many examples perceived
to be "causes" of the problems discussed in the previous section.
These causes are grouped into seven (7) frequency categories. In
descending order, the most frequent response categories-were:

1. Local Government
2. The General Public
3. The Economy
4. (tie) Recreational opportunities
Taxes
5. (tie) Traffic
Commercialism
Quality of Life
6. (tie) Agricultural Issues
Cost of Living
7. Other

Further examination of these frequency categories offers the
following analysis:

1. Local Government

Those participating in the forums identified local government
as a cause of Leelanauls growth problems. Generally, one may
think of local government as the "scapegoat" for many
problems, but detailed analysis of the responses indicates
there is some merit in this conclusion in the eyes of forum
participants.

Most comments in this area centered on local government's
perceived inability to deal with growth issues. Inadequate
and inconsistent zoning and zoning enforcement were
consistently listed as major concerns. Lack of coordination
in planning and zoning efforts and lack of county-wide goals
and policies, especially where water quality is concerned,
were cited as well. Waiting until problems "appeared" and
crisis management were also major. criticisms of local
government. This was tied to local governments lack of
understanding of how development occurs was a cause listed by
general public participants.

Other local government issues included duplication of ef fort,
uncertainty of roles, and state statute limitations. Local
government forum participation listed inability to deal with
large scale growth issues as a cause and senior citizens
expressed displeasure with the lack of information provided
in legal notices and the type (print) size chosen to publish
legal notices. Special interests/non representation on
boards/committees was listed as a basis for controlling land
use decisions.

2. The General Public

Though they were hard on local government, forum participants
were equally hard on themselves in their role as "general
public". In another unanimous consensus, increasing
population, increasing transient/tourist/seasonal population
and densities and the desire to be rich (a.k.a greed) were
listed as causes of problems. The public's overall lack of
involvement and apathy to recognize buildout scenarios were
also reported.

3. The Economy

The economy and fluctuations therein were referred to as
contributing to the cause of growth problems in Leelanau
County. Employment at less than desirable wages and the type
of jobs being offered were commonly mentioned (local
government, senior citizens). The economics of the
agriculture industry were commonly mentioned at most forums
as contributing factor.

4. (tie) Recreational opportunities
Taxes

Recreational opportunities

Agricultural interests and senior citizens forum participants
each listed recreational opportunities as a cause of growth
problems. Many people are attracted to the County's
recreational facilities. Promotion of these facilities and
the County in general are causing added problems.
Additionally, shrinking availability of "public" recreation
land was cited as a cause of problems.

Taxes

Taxes are said to be a cause of growth problems specifically
when discussing increasing land values and -proportionate
affect on tax rates. Forum participants felt current tax

structures are causing the "common citizen" to move from the
"choice" areas of Leelanau County due to this increase in
property values. Participants connected this issue with the
overall cost of living in the county.

(tie) Traffic
Commercialism
Quality of Life

Traffic

The senior citizen participants were adamant about the
problems caused by traffic. Not only was the number of
vehicles on County roads mentioned, but the ongoing conflicts
between motorized and non-motorized transportation as well.

Commercialism

The participants at the business and industry session and
senior citizen sessions saw commercialism as a cause of County
problems. The "selling" of the County to attract more
tourists was reported. It was noted that many groups are
responsible for this effort including a number of groups
outside of the county.

Ouality of Life

The diminishing quality of life in Leelanau County was cited
as a cause of growth problems at the environmental interests
and senior citizens forums.

6. (tie) Agricultural Issues
Cost of Living

Agricultural Issues

The local government and general public forum participants
listed problems associated with agriculture as a cause of
growth problems in Leelanau County. Declining commodities
markets for farm produce was stated to be at the root of the
farmer having to sell off parcels of land to developers.

Cost of Living

Senior citizens commonly saw the cost of living in Leelanau
County as a significant cause of growth problems. Many people'
are said to be "priced out" of the County as property
assessments and home sale prices increase as was mentioned
earlier.

7. Other

There were various "other" noted causes of problems in the
County including, by forum:

- senior citizens: Drugs
Local Government: "Big City" Paradigm
- General Public: External Forces, Residential Sprawl
- Environmental Interests: Golf Courses, Resorts,
Technological Advances, Loss of Wetlands
- senior citizens: High Prices Paid for homes
- Agricultural Interests: Lagging Infrastructure,
Residential Sprawl
- Business and Industry: Mobility

WHY ARE YOU CONCERNED?

Forum participants clearly and unanimously stated they were
concerned about the growth issues Leelanau County is facing.
Though this question provided the most response among the - f orum
participants, ten (10) "frequency categories" became obvious during
analysis. Grouped in descending order,.the frequency categories
are:

1. Difficulty controlling growth
2. Agriculture-related issues
3. (tie) Pollution
Environmental Concerns
4. Increasing Crime Rate
5. (tie) Economy
Traffic
6. (tie) Service Demands
Government official expertise and standards
Changing values
Costs associated with growth
7. (tie) Individual cost of living
Taxes
8. (tie) Public Health
Quality of life
Aesthetics
9. Public safety
10. Other

Further examination of the frequency categories offers the
following analysis:

1. Difficulty Controlling Growth

The top concern among forum participants is the
difficulty controlling the growth occurring in Leelanau
County. This concern was expressed at all of the forums.

Those taking part in the local government officials forum
stated there is often too little time to react to the
many growth changes taking place. Further, they
commented there were no community design standards to
promote uniformity among the various types of development
being considered.

Those attending the general public forum cited a general
lack of knowledge among county citizens and government
of how development occurs as a serious concern. The lack
of public input on growth issues was also mentioned.

conversely, participants in the agricultural interests
forum felt current zoning is taking away some
opportunities. This, according to some, should not be
allowed to occur.

2. Agricultural issues

Issues related to agriculture were listed as being of
concern in all but the environmental interests and
general public forums. The loss of agricultural lands
was most commonly cited among' participants. The
economics of farming, however, were of primary concern
to those attending the agricultural interests forum.

3. (tie) Pollution
Environmental Concerns

These two closely related categories were reported as concerns
at all but the local government officials and general public
forums.

Pollution

Increased levels of pollution of all types was expressed as
a concern among many of the forum participants. This concern
was not limited to the traditional types of pollution as light
and noise pollution were also frequently mentioned.

Environmental Concerns

Correlation can be drawn between concerns over pollution and
the environment. It can be concluded that polluted resources
result in diminished environmental quality. Thus, the
expressed concerns of decreased air and water quality is
directly related to the pollution of same. The reduction in
air and water quality was expressed as a concern among
agricultural and environmental interests. Loss of wetlands
was also expressed as a concern among agricultural interests.

4. Increasing Crime Rate

An increasing crime rate was expressed as a concern
primarily among local government officials and senior
citizens, however, it was liberally discussed among all

participants. The number of crimes being committed in
the county was not the only concern as the types of crime
being committed were often discussed. Property damage
resulting from vandalism was mentioned as a specific
concern. Further, some participants expressed increasing
concern over the perceived increase in violent crimes.

(tie) Economy
Traffic

Economy

Concern over the county economy was expressed at all but
the business and industry and general public forums.
Environmental interests feel a more diverse economy is
a necessity. Along those same lines, agricultural
interests and senior citizens feel most tourist dollars
are not returning to Leelanau County, but are instead
being distributed outside the county. Local government
officials expressed their concern over the lack of "good
jobs" in the county.

Traffic

Traffic concerns, though dominate in previous sections,
were mentioned here primarily by senior citizens.
General road conditions and hazards occurring at various
road intersections were among the specific concerns
expressed.

6. (tie) Service issues
Government official expertise/standards
Changing values
Costs associated with growth

Service issues

Services offered to the public were listed as a concern by
local government officials and senior citizens. Local
government officials were also concerned about providing
funding for services as demands increase. Some senior
citizens feel better public transportation is important.

Government official expertise/standards

The lack of local official expertise was expressed as a
concern among local officials themselves. They noted the
variety of growth issues facing them as a primary
concern. Those attending the environmental interests
forum were concerned about developers with "political

connections" and questioned whether local officials were
"hearing the people". The general public forum
participants expressed their doubts of local government's
capability of attaining stated goals.

Changing values

Public values were an expressed concern at all but the
business and industry and agricultural interests f orums.
The environmental interest participants cited as their
concerns the public's unwillingness to "share" the county
and the public's diversity of attitude. The diversity
of attitude point, as presented by the environmental
interests, is typified by those wishing to "close the
door" after they arrive and those wanting to create more
jobs in the county.

The lack of general land ethics was a concern expressed
by the general public participants. Local government
officials expressed their concern over the loss of
Leelanau County's "small town" atmosphere.

Costs associated with new growth

All but the environmental interest forum heard concerns
expressed over the future costs associated with the
county's growth. Infrastructure costs and services were
specific concerns.

7. (tie) Individual cost of living
Taxes

Individual cost of living

senior citizens expressed their concern over the increasing
cost of living in Leelanau County. Housing was again a topic
of discussion in this category.

Taxes

Agricultural interests and senior citizens expressed
concern over taxes. Agricultural interests expressed
concern over the current taxing structure and reported
their belief that farmers pay more in taxes than the
average county citizen, yet demand less services.

a. (tie) Public Health
Quality of Life
Aesthetics

Public Health

Participants in the business and industry and
environmental interest forums stated their public health
concerns. Some senior citizens also expressed this
concern.

Ouality of Life

Quality , of Life issues were of concern primarily to
business and industry, local government officials, and
senior citizen participants.

Aesthetics

Loss of aesthetic values in Leelanau County was a concern
of environmental interest and general public forum
participants.

9. Public Safety

Possibly related to increases in crime, the environmental
interests and senior citizens cited their concern for
public safety. Fire protection was specifically
mentioned by some senior citizens.

10. Other

Other concerns less frequently expressed included, by forum:

Business and Industry: Future generations
Local government: Increasing property values
senior citizens: Disregard for private property; Local
people bring on additional problems; Need for senior
citizen centers

CONCLUSIONS

As was stated in the initial paragraphs of the section on
analytical approach, art and science are both involved in attempts
to "create the future". Since such an ef fort is not by its nature
exclusively a scientifically objective process, values and opinions
have significant impacts. This is appropriate. However, the
influence of value and opinion complicates the process of drawing
conclusions from activities such as the ten (10) Growth Management
Forums.

Thus, rather than risk "overplaying" the scientific aspect of
"findings and conclusions", a decision has been made to draw only
the most general conclusions which seem to be well supported by the
forum results. In the end, the greatest value of the forums may
be the insights gained by participants and the total influence of
the raw information on the individual viewpoints of the actors in
the growth management decision making process, i.e: Citizen
Advisory Committee members, Planning Commission members, County
Commissioners and local government officials.

With the foregoing caveats in mind, the general conclusions to be
drawn from the Growth Management Forums appear to be:

- Many Leelanau County citizens from all walks of
life, public and private, feel that Leelanau County
is changing as a result of growth.

- Although growth related changes are wide spread
geographically and uneven in impact, definable
areas in the county are under perceptively greater
development pressure i.e.: a) unique natural
features-water frontage, view amenity areas, etc.
b) arterial transportation corridors c) areas
proximate to Traverse City.

- Many problems are perceived to be associated with
this new growth and the problem areas can be
identified both geographically and functionally.

- The causes of many of the perceived problems are
identifiable. Some of the problems are susceptible
to local initiatives directed at the underlying
causes. other problems have causes beyond the
borders of the County of Leelanau and thus, only

the local manifestations of the problem, i.e.
symptoms, can be dealt with locally.

many county citizens and property owners are highly
concerned about the problems they perceive to be
associated with changes in the county as a result
of growth.

opportunity exists for sound, carefully designed
@rowth management initiatives by local government
in Leelanau County. Care and caution must be
exercised in such initiatives, as by most
indicators local government (County, Townships,
Villages) performance to date is not impressive.
The credibility of local governments as growth
managers is an issue. Diverse viewpoints, powerful
market forces and a history of functional ly/ legally
fragmented efforts mitigate against the creation
and sustained implementation of a coherent growth
management approach.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX ONE
I Leelanau county comprehensive Development Plan
Citizen Advisory Committee
Trend Analysis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 38
1

ECONOXIC BASE

Trends Identified

1. Taxation
Increasing taxes for less services
Common citizens moving out due to rising taxes, land values,
housing.

2. Lack of Jobs.
Tourism related jobs growing "appearing" at the expense of
agriculture/open space

Tourist jobs are low paying - can't support a family.

People shuttling into Traverse City for employment.

3. Higher Expectations with New Residents vs. Local Services.

4. Increased Commercialization
Tend to be tourist oriented.

5. Increasing Hostility (Polarizing groups)

6. Declining Tax Base
Peshawbestown/National Park - but it preserves open space.

7. No low income housing.

8. Recreation not generating income for $$ it takes to create
them.

CONCLUSION: Everyone wants good jobs and large tax base but no one
wants to pay for growth or reduce quality of life.

TRANSPORTATION

Trends Identified

1. Roads are problem

2. M-204, M-22, M-72

3. Volume of traffic
Effect on trees and shrubbery near road.
Traffic noise
Congestion
Parking
People vs. Cars

4. Trunkline development

5. Deterioration of roads - barely keeping up

6. Poor road signs.

7. Bicycling problems
Lots of tours
Few bike paths

8. Poor visibility
Hills
Curves
Intersections

9. Need Improved Road shoulders

10. People driving like "idiots"-traffic speed too high-may need
to be reduced.

11. Need better use of public transportation.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Trends Identified:

1. Water-Lakes, streams, lakeshore, groundwater
Private Marinas
Keyhole development
Increased pollution
Lack of sewers
Failure to inspect septics
Lack of pure drinking water
Additional boat traffic on lakes
Loss of wetlands
Swimmers itch
Increased spraying

2. Open Space-Agricultural and wooded land
Diminishing
Ridge development
Taxation forces development
Commercial outgrowth from Traverse City
Decline in cherry farms
Commercial resort development.

3. Timber

4. Wildlife

5. Minerals
Gravel/sand
Increasing in number
Pressure from other areas.

6. Beaches
Greater Demand for public access
Less land available for access.

7. National Park

8. Island Development

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Trends Identified:

1. Disposal area is decreasing
What do you do with it?
Where will it go?
Handle on local basis or allow DNR to handle it?

2. Gas Station problems-Tri-County Health.

3. Problem with Cedar
High Water Table

4. Sewers a must

5. County Land-fill

6. Incinerator
Re-open county land fill to provide area to take the solid
waste

7. Provide plan to dispose of solid waste and educate people to
utilize process.

8. Provide recycling program and educational program.

WATER AIND WASTE WATER

Trends Identified:

1. Increased population creating pressures on currently
inadequate sewer systems.

2. Old septic systems not being replaced and updated

3. Use of lakes is increasing population and tourist use.

4. Improper use of fertilizer and pesticides by agriculture and
private residences - concern

5. Ground water contamination from underground storage tanks.
Need to locate unused dump sites, etc.

6. Decreased public access to lakes (private beaches increased)

7. Increased blacktop paving related to businesses, etc.

8. Lower quality of lake water

9. Roads contributing to surface and groundwater.

10. Water quality overseer.

11. Easier to stop pollution rather than reverse (major citizen
concern)

12. Prime concern in growth planning should be preserving or
increasing water quality.

13. Golf courses have the potential for contamination through
intensive use of fertilizers.

14. Loss of wetlands.

Good Trends:
Lots of beautiful water of generally very high quality.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Trends Identified:

1. Recycling Programs
Hazardous Waste; Weekly Disposal
Paper and Tin Products
Old: Cars, Farm equipment, etc.

2. Public Beaches
Boat Launches
Swimming areas
Maintenance

3. Schools
Pre-schools
Head start program

4. Senior Citizen Housing
Low income housing
Aging programs, meal, social get together.

5. Transportation-more community transportation needed.
Bata Bus

6. Recreation
Parks
Public Open Space

7. Housing need for low income.
Low income housing
Rental Information

8.. Emergency Services-more needed.
Police
Fire Department
Ambulances

9. Public information

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Trends Identified

1. Lack of Communication between citizens/Government agencies.

2. Lack of Communication network between governments and
understanding of how each government system works.

3. Lack of understanding of each government bodies roles.

4. Lack of Knowledge

5. Lack of Leadership

6. Lack of Planning

7. Lack of Knowledge

8. Lack of Harmony between government agencies

9. Feeling of Helplessness
no contact for smaller entity to hear his/her concerns
People/Authority communication is bad.

10. Missing-Lack of communication between people and those in
regulatory authority. Ex. Fire Dept. vs. Building Dept.

11. Lack of communication in all levels of government

CONCLUSION: Need increased communication and the means of it
between local and public/local and state/ local and federal, etc.

RECREATION

Trends Identified

1. Local people don't have access to "free" recreation.

2. Lack of public recreational space-overcrowding.

3. Destinations:
National Park
Sugar Loaf
Homestead

4. major recreation:
Beaches
Picnic areas
Bike Paths

5. Trend toward privately owned resort areas that you pay for.

6. Tourists are using "free" areas and it makes it difficult for
local people to use it.

7. Recreation and Resort
Golf courses-but pollution problems
Private ownership

CONCLUSION: Recreation is low in the ratings because it is a
leisure activity. Recreation/Tourists a problem.
Resorts and other "private" recreation spots where public has to
pay. Pressure on free recreation
a. Launching sites
b. Public access and beaches
c. Bike paths

HOUSING TRENDS

Trends Identified:

1. Strip Development

2. Arterial Development

3. Scattered Development

4. Loss of Woods, Quality of Life

5. Loss of Traditional Landscape

6. Loss of Access to Views

7. Loss of Access to Lakes, Water Resources

8. Increase in home prices

9. Increase in Taxes

10. Fewer places to rent

11. Pressure on infrastructure: schools, roads, etc.

12. Lack of Senior Housing

13. Lack of Rentals

14. Lack of Affordable Housing

15. No sense of a plan or that planning is working.

16. Need to maintain traditional landscape.

CONCLUSION: Increased demand for housing and the impact of growth
on housing threatens quality of life. General sense that there is
no control/direction to mitigate the impact of the increased number
of homes and task of ensuring county has a mix of housing to suit
the needs of its citizens.

LAND USE PLANNING/REGULATION

Trends Identified:

1. Zoning and Regulation of land use has been insufficient.

2. Elevate zoning from townships to county.

3. Land use planning is more sophisticated today.

4. Lack of Goals

5. Agricultural Policy is not capable of preserving the open
space for farms.

6. We need to develop a policy that:
a. Recognizes need of farmers
b. Develop markets, tax incentives
c. Meets the demands of growth

7. Increasing population puts new demands for development.

8. Low income housing insufficient, senior housing.

9. Industrial sites are scattered or non-existent.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX TWO
I Raw Data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 49
1

COMBINED PARTICIPANT LIST

LEELANAU COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUMS

DECEMBER 1. 1989
FEBRUARY 12 - 21, 1990

Abbott, Barbara T. Cheadle, Gary A.
Addington, Conley Christopherson, John
Amrhein, John Cole, Lois
Anderlick, Emily Cooper, Sara
Attington, Marion Craker, Ruth
Avis, John* Cruden, Barbara
Baldwin, Richard J. Curtis, Patricia
Balesh, Ester Davis, James
Ball, Jill Davis, Hazel
Bardenhagen, James V. Dean, Tom
Bardenhagen, Gary Dean, Pauline
Barker, Keith Dean, Jeanine
Barrett, Agnes H. Dean, Albert
Beare, Joanne Deering, Phil***
Belanger, Tim Dekker, Greg
Beuerle, Amelia Dobson, James
Bimber, Fred Drow, Harriet
Blakely, Jana Egeler, Judy*
Bolton, William Egeler, Cliff
Bolton, Fern Eggert, Jim
Boone, Albert Eggert, Jean
Brach, Lynne Eggert, Gerald
Brach, George Elsenheimer, Virginia
Bredehoeft, Merle** Elsenheimer, James
Breederland, Mark Evans, Sue
Bryant, Praxes Evans, Bob
Bugai, Stephen Fellows, Neal
Bugai, Ethel Firestone, Kathy***
Burton, Jack** Fitch, Roger H.
Buta, Ruth Flaska, Glen
Callison, Tom Flaska, Olive
Carlson, Jane Flees, Martin
Carlson, Rudolph Flees, Alice
Carr, Jim Flees, Clarissa
Carr, Sally Francisco, Leona
Chambers, Stephen* Gallagher, Jack***
Charter, Thelma Ganter, Jim

Gardner, Paul Lambkin, Cathy
Garthe, Sigwalda Lanham, Fred Jr.
Garthe, Steiner Larsen, Richard
Garwood, Peter LaValley, Pete
Gauthier, Wilbert Leighton, Galen
Gauthier, Glen Lindley, Mary
Gertiser, Anne Lindley, Ralph
Gilmore, Beverly Long, Buzz
Gilmore, Earth B. Loreto, Phil J.
Grayvold, Lena Loreto, Dee D.
Halvorsen, Lars Lund, Earl
Hanes, Florence Mace, Penny
Haney, Bette MacLellan, Dana**
Haney, Les Massaroni, Jim
Haney, Virginia Mateer, Norma
Hansen, Arnold Mateer, Bill**
Harleness, Dan Mawby, Lawrence*
Haug, Sherry McGettrick, John*
Headland, Carl* McGovern, Jim
Heinz, Beverly* McKay, George
Hermann, Helen McKay, Wendy
Hester, Marcie McKay, Stafford
Hodoba, Clara McNeil, Ethel
Holden, Deedy McNeil, Gerald
Hominga, Al McNeil, Elinor
Hominga, Lucy Mead, Prudence P.
Huck, Rick Melichar, Fern
Hulbert, Raymond Mikowski, Steve
Jacob, Fern Mikowski, MaryLou
Jedena, Walter Millard, Bob
Jelinek' Martin Millard, Sunny
John, Bud Miller, Phyllis
Johnson Julius Miser, Don
Jones, @ob Miser, Loretta
Kalchik, Steve** Mitchell, Don***
Kalchik, Joan M. Mobley, Jack*
Kalchik, Elmer Monstrey, Dave L.*
Kalchik, Ron Mork, Otto***
Kallush, Jeri Naymick, John
Kasben, John Newman', Mary
Kellogg, Ruth N. Nielsen, Walt
Kelly, Tom Nielsen, Karen*
Kiessel, Rita Nims, Margaret
Kiessel, Frank Nims, Richard
Kimmerly, Gert Noonan, Glen*
King, Greg Noonan, Roger
Kirt, Mildred Nordfjord, Anita
Korson, Blaise Nowicki, Leota
Kronk, Mike O'Brien, Bill
Kruch, Chuck O'Grady, Jack
Krupa, Phil Pardee, Pauline
Krupa, Alice Parker, Ida

Peplinski, Selma Takayama, Mitsume*
Peschel, Sandra L. Takayama, Phyllis
Plamondon, Daniel Thiel, Phil
Pleva, Matilda Thornberry, Kathryn
Pleva, Joyce Tietze, Ray
Pleva, Leonard Treat, Jim
Popp, Loretta Turner, Kathy
Popp, Clarence Vandeburg, Mike
Porter, Marie VanderLinde, Pam
Posner, Matthew VanRaalte, John P-*
Power, Margot** VanRaalte, John D.
Price, Brian VanTholen, John
Priest, Beatrice VanZoeren, Tom*
Putnam, John Verdier, Lawrence**
Rauch, Daniel Viskochil, David*
Ray, Eleanor Walker, Roger
Raz, John Walters, D.
Reincke, Walter Walters, Pauline
Reincke, Marjorie Ware, Barbara
Rhoads, Ronald G. Wason, Joan
Rhoads, Glen I. Wason, Dick
Richards, Paul Watkins, John
Rieske, Niel Watkins, Jean
Rockershousen, John** Watson, K.
Rogers, Charlene Weatherbee, Jim
Ryan, Martha Werner, Midge
Sanborn, Harry Whitfield, Ben*
Schaub, Norbert Wichern, Lucille
Scherf, Jim Wilbur, Ruth
Scherf, Betty Williams, Roger
Schindler, Kurt Wilson, Richard*
Schlee, Ted Wood, Elaine
Schopieray, Kim* Woods, Joan
Scott, Bob Wunderlich, Wayne
Scott, Larry Wyatt, Wendy
Sheridan, Mary Wyatt Fellows, Deb
Shimek, Tom Youker, Jean
Shugart, Ken Zeits, Dorothy
Smiley, Steven B. Zientek, Anna
Smith, Mary
Smith, Craig
Smith, Tony Denotes Citizen Advisory
Smith, Derith A.* Committee Members
nyder, Ralph E.
Spinniken, Robert Denotes Leelanau County
S

Stanek, John D.*** Planning Commission Members
Stebbins, Susan
Steffens, Rosie Denotes Leelanau County
Stetz, Dorothy Board of Commissioners Members
Stetz, John
Sutton, Gertrude
Swartz, Don

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUM

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

CO-SPONSOR: LEELANAU COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Leland Fire Hall
12 February 1990

Facilitator - George McKay, Former Executive Director
of the Leelanau County Chamber of Commerce

ATTENDANCE LIST

Penny Mace Jim Massaroni
Jim McGovern Martha Ryan
Margot Power* Roger Walker
Roger H. Fitch Robert Spinniken
Bill Mateer* Walter Jedena
Daniel Rauch Barbara T. Abbott
Helen Hermann Phil Krupa
Alice Krupa David Viskochil*
Wayne Wunderlich John D. VanRaalte
Phil Deering* Dave L. Monstrey*
Richard Nims Margaret Nims
Larry Scott Ruth Buta
Wendy McKay Stafford McKay
Prudence P. Mead John P. VanRaalte*
John Watkins Jean Watkins
Bob Millard Sunny Millard
Marcie Hester Lawrence Verdier
Marie Porter Wendy Wyatt
George Brach Barbara Cruden
John VanTholen

Denotes Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Staff: T. Dolehanty, D. Beard

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Traffic/Parking
2. Pollution
3. Sewer Lines
4. Crime
5. Tax Assessment (property)
6. School Crowding/Consolidation
7. Decrease in Agricultural Land
8. Services (expensive) police, etc.

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Along the lake
2. Elmwood Township
3. Along main trunklines
4. Recreational areas (Sugarloaf, Homestead, etc)
5. 15 mile radius from Traverse City
6. Hilltops/View Property
7. Extended use of Seasonal dwellings (condos)
8. Increase in Native Americans

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Pollution
2. Waste Disposal
3. Traffic (Maple decline)
4. Education (overcrowding in schools)
5. Increased Property taxes (Assessed Valuation)
6. Population Densities
7. Increased pressure for commercial zoning
8. Lack of wildlife habitat
9. Fire/Rescue Services (Volunteers)
10. Access to Property (No trespassing)
11. Lack of "accessible" woods

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Lakeshore (all)
2. Villages
3. Traverse City area
4. Access to and from main roads
5. Solid Waste Disposal Areas
6. Agricultural Areas

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. People
2. Lack of good zoning/planning
3. Attitude
4. Personal Mobility (Automobile)
5. Commercialism
6. Leadership (Lack/Quality of)
7. Lack of Knowledge (Education)
S. Standard of Living

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Quality of Life
2. Natural Setting
3. -Feeling of Helplessness to stop growth rate
4. Health
5. Cost of Solving Problems
6. Future Generations
7. Loss of Fruit Growing Land

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUM

ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS

CO-SPONSOR: NORTHERN MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL

Empire Township Hall
14 February 1990

Facilitator - Mark Breederland, Environmental Programs Coordinator
Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

ATTENDANCE LIST

D. Walters Susan Stebbins
K. Watson Karen Nielsen*
Fred Bimber Walt Nielsen
Phil Thiel Cathy Lambkin
Chuck Kruch Matthew Posner
Bud John Beverly Gilmore
Barbara Were Dick Wason
Joan Wason Bob Scott
Jeanine Dean Tom Dean
Bob Jones Lynne Brach
Dan Harleness Brian Price
Pete LaValley Jeri Kallush
Greg Dekker John P. VanRaalte*
Deedy Holden Steven B. Smiley
William Bolton Phil Deering*
Dana MacLellan Mike Vandeburg
Joyce Pleva

Denotes Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla, D. Beard

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Decrease in buildable/developable land
2. Increase in Condo development
3. Aesthetics
4. "Strip" residential development
5. Waterfront development increase
6. Decrease in Recreational Beaches
7. Keyholing
8. Pressure on Natural Features
9. "Expensive" county (taxes)
10. Deteriorating Roads
11. Hostilities between "developers" and "environmentalists"
12. Loss of Farmland
13. Bicycle Tours (too many)
14. More "bedroom" for Traverse City than Leelanau
15. Pollution (Landfills)
16. More Transient Residents
17. More Commercial Exposure (Sleeping Bear Dunes, National
Lakeshore, Homestead, etc.)
18. Crime Rate and Variety
19. Decline in water.resources
20. Hardship on Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. All waterfront
2. Commercial resorts
3. Scenic View Property
4. Along major roads to Traverse City (all roads)
5. Along Park Boundaries
6. Islands
7. Peshawbestown
8. Village Business District
9. Decline in areas (Cedar)
10. Public Beaches/Boat Accesses

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Destruction of Environment
2.* Infrastructure
3. Ground/Surface Water Quality
4. Employment (wages)
5. Traffic (X-22 specifically)
6. Taxation
7. Service decline
8. Lack of Planning
9. Loss of Farmland
10. Waste Disposal
11. Hostilities/Conflict
12. Character of Environment
13. Affordable Housing
14. Lack of Recreational Space (Public Lands)
15. School overcrowding
16. Decrease in the "Quality of Life"

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Zoning Boards/Boards of Appeals
2. Township Governments
3. Expanding Commercial Resorts
4. "Cashing In" on property (keyholing)
5. Lakes/Shorelines
6. Declining Cherry Farms

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Large Resorts replacing smaller ones
2. Greed
3. Inadequate zoning enforcement and inconsistent zoning
4. Taxation without representation (Summer residents are unable
to "speak" or be heard)
5. Higher Assessments without increase in service
6. Quality of Life
7. Technological Advances
a. Second Home "tax break"
9. Rented second homes
10. Consistent Transient Population
11. Inability to address the problems associated with consistent
transient population.
12. Individual Growth Control
13. "Heavy" tourist season
14. Water Quality - no county policy to deal with sanitary codes
15. Loss of wetlands
16. Golf courses.

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Aesthetics
2. Water Quality
3. Air Quality
4. Noise Pollution
5. -Light Pollution
6. Public Safety
7. Local Government Not Hearing Citizens
8. Public Health
9. Developers with political connections
10. Economic Base (Need more Diversity in case the Services-our
largest area-falls apart)
11. Unwillingness to "share" Leelanau County.

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUM

AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS

CO-SPONSOR: LEELANAU COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

Elmwood Township Center
19 February 1990

Facilitator - J. Bardenhagen, Cooperative Extension Director

ATTENDANCE LIST

Judy Egeler* Jack Burton*
Steve Kalchik* Gerald Eggert
Jean Eggert Karen Nielsen*
Bill Mateer* Norma Mateer
John Amrhein Ronald G. Rhoads
Buzz Long Lars Halvorsen
Glenn I. Rhoads Marty Jelinek
Martin Jelinek Tom VanZoeren*
Blaise Korson Elmer Kalchik
Glen Noonan* Sally Carr
Jim Carr Mary Smith
Tony Smith Ken Shugart
Daniel Plamondon Tom Callison
Tim Belanger Keith Barker
Margot Power* David Viskochil*
Jack Gallagher*

* Denotes Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Staff: T. Galla, T. Dolehanty

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Traffic
2. Road Maintenance
3. Cost of Services (police)
4. Property Tax Increases
5. Overcrowded Schools
6. Increased Revenue Base
7. More Solid Waste
8. Water Quality
9. Pressure on Agriculture (sprays, smell, noise)
10. Conflict within Interest Groups
11. Pressure for more building
12. Increased Property Values
13. Groundwater Contamination
14. Lower Unemployment-(Lower than 30 years ago, more tourists
bring more jobs to the area)
15. Increase in Land sold "out of" agriculture

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Lakeshore (Inland and Great Lakes)
2. View Property
3. Indian Reservation
4. Close proximity to Traverse City
5. Suttons Bay Area
6. M-22 Corridor
7. Sleeping Bear Park and Fringe Areas
8. Within individual School Districts
9. Resorts/Developed Areas (Homestead, Ford Road)

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Sewage
2. Water
3. Fire Protection
4. Roads
5. Schools
6. Police Protection
7. Traffic
8. Full Jail
9. Loss of Scenic Views
10. Quality of Water around Lakes
11. Recreation (too many boats)
12. Cost of Housing
13. Below average wage (not enough to afford home, especially 1st
home)
14. Solid waste
15. Conflicts between land owners and "trespassers"
16. "Opportunity" to sell farm land
17. Conflicts between agricultural uses and neighboring population
18. Lack of understanding of agriculture
19. Increase in crime

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Along Road System (trunklines)
2. Greilickville (water quality), Cedar
3. Lake Leelanau
4. Leland
5. All inland lakes
6. Schools (National Park and Indian Reservation - tax loss)
7. "General" County
8. All shoreline (water quality)
9. Suttons Bay (scenic views)
10. Housing costs are worse in northern areas of the county-
increased cost for building.

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Increased Population (People)
2. Lack of "education" related to some problems
3. Increased population density around lakes
4. Wider use of recreation lands
5. Increased population density per acre
6. Zoning and variances
7. Lack of policy guidelines
8. "Lagging" infrastructure-way behind growth
9. Residential "sprawl"

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Difficulty in reversing water quality problems
2. Loss of fruit growing lands unique to Leelanau (general
Agriculture)
3. Prime agricultural land should be protected over marginal
agricultural land
4. Loss of wetlands
5. Agriculture paying larger shore of taxes
6. Tourism should pay larger share for services provided
7. Proportion of tourist $$ not returning to Leelanau County
8. Zoning Problems - "taking away" choices
9. Taxes vs. Income for cherry processing (no breaks for
processors)
10. Cost of services increasing over income.
11. Taxing at "potential use" instead of "current use".
12. Willingness to pay for development rights on "open space',
13. Buffering between Agriculture uses and residential uses
(county wide)
14. "Onus" (burden) moved from Agricultural land to Residential
land
15. Loss of processors due to over-regulation
16. Making Agriculture viable.

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

CO-SPONSOR: LEELANAU COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE
MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION

Bingham Schoolhouse
20 February 1990

Facilitator - Elaine Wood, Deputy Director
Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

ATTENDANCE LIST

Lois Cole Paul Gardner
Sandra L. Peschel* Harry Sanborn
Merle Bredehoeft Gary Bardenhagen
Kim Schopieray* Phil Deering*
John Raz Bob Scott
Joan Woods John McGettrick*
Midge Werner Jim Eggert
Albert Boone Janna Blakely
Pauline Walters Cliff Egeler
Paul Richards John Naymick
John D. Stanek Bill O'Brien

Denotes Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Crowded Schools
2. Traffic
3. Parking
4. Pole Buildings
5. Less Open Space
6. More Commercialization
7. Tourism
8. Strip Development
9. Condominiums
10. Less Water Frontage
11. Contaminated Water
12. Average Worker driven to center of County

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. M-22 Corridor
2. M-72 Corridor
3. Along Lakeshores
4. In Villages
5. View Properties

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Traffic Congestion
2. Overcrowded Schools
3. Lack of Sewer/Water service
4. Lack of Jobs
5. Shortened Landfill Life
6. Poor Road System
7. Decreasing water quality
8. Demands on township/government officials
9. Funding for services
10. Failing zoning
11. "Downstate" expectations

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. In Schools
2. Along Highway Corridors
3. Lakeshores
4. Villages
5. Areas adjacent to Traverse City
6. General Road System
7. Agricultural Lands
8. Descending-Lake property sold f irst-then view property-then
agricultural land
9. Less populated areas supporting services f or more populated
areas.
10. Surface water (Lakes)
11. Air/Noise Pollution
12. Light Pollution

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Increased Population
2. Economic Growth
3. Increased Tourism
4. Agricultural Problems
5. Diversity of Expectations ("Big City" Paradigms)
6. Economic Shifts
7. Traverse City Growth
8. "Crisis" management (reactive)
9. Poor Planning ("deferred" issues)
10. Government Duplication/Shuffling
uncertainty of roles
11. State Statute Limitations
12. Large Seasonal Population

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. We live here.
2. Escalating Property Values
3. Declining Quality of Life
4. Difficulty Controlling Growth at Large Scale
5. No "community Design" standards (including aesthetics,
landscaping)
6. Rate of Growth - little time to react/ or keep up
7. Lack of jobs (above minimum average)
8. Higher crime rate
9. Protection of Agricultural land/Open land
10. Diversity of Attitude (close the door vs. more jobs)
11. Demand on Services (Fire Department, etc.)
12. Costs associated with growth
13. Inability to "catch up" with costs
14. Demand on schools
15. Changing values
16. Loss of "small town" atmosphere
17. Lack of "expertise" on planning commissions
18. Lack of public participation
19. Need for education/public input

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FORUM

GENERAL PUBLIC

CO-SPONSOR: LEELANAU CONSERVANCY

Omena Fire Hall
21 February 1990

Facilitator Brian Price, Manager of Leelanau Conservancy

ATTENDANCE LIST

Craig S. Smith Bev Heinz*
Steve Mikowski MaryLou Mikowski
Joan M. Kalchik Gary A. Cheadle
Tom Smith Mary Smith
Norbert Schaub Carl Headland*
Kathy Turner Deb Wyatt Fellows
Wendy Wyatt Neal Fellows
Tom Kelly Earl B. Gilmore
Dick Wilson* David Viskochil*
Kathy Craker Firestone John Putnam

Denotes Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Staff: T. Dolehanty, D. Beard

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Too Many People
2. Diversity of People
3. Traffic Problems
4. Higher Taxes
5. Subdivisions
6. "Fancy" Home Development
7. Polluted Lakes
8. Light Pollution
9. Lack of Access to Private Land
10. Parking Problems
11. Pedestrian Problems
12. "Planning" Need
13. Groundwater Pollution

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. M-204
2. Lakeshores
3. View Property
4. M-72 (Commercial Development)
5. County Road 641-Bingham.
6. Greilickville
7. M-22 Corridor (Traverse City to Suttons Bay)
8. Peshawbestown
9. Suttons Bay (South)
10. Harbors/Marinas
11. Leland
12. Golf Courses

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Loss of "View"
2. Loss of aesthetic quality
3. Noise
4. Providing Services (emergency services, etc.)
5. New utilities
6. Security
7. Loss of Agricultural Land
S. Income Gap
9. Deteriorating Roads
10. Pressure to build outside of villages (spillover; leap
frogging, Etc)
11. Pressure on Schools
12. Pollution
13. Solid Waste Disposal
14. Sewer Systems
15. Conflict between Agriculture and Development
16. Conflicting use of roadways
17. Increasing taxes
18. Loss of tax base (NPS)
19. Lower paying jobs
20. Surface water quality/risks
21. Use of waterways

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Lakeshores
2. Highway Corridors
3. organizational ability/ability of government to handle issues
4. Concentration on "high profile" projects
5. Competing values
6. Affordable Housing
7. Cost of living due to in-migration
8. Intense development caused by high property values
9. Failure to support agriculture
10. Forces "external" to Leelanau County

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. External Forces
2. Low prices for farm commodities
3. Lack of sophistication at township level (ability to see
choices)
4. Lack of public involvement
5. "Piecemeal" growth decisions (short-range planning)
6. Limited Resources at the township level
7. Failure to understand zoning situation
8. Lack of overall goals (growth rate, etc.)
9. Lack of coordination (shared goals)
10. Inflexible zoning
11. Unequal representation on zoning board
12. No "value consensus" within the county
13. Refusal to recognize that "build-out" can happen

ARE YOU COWCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Don't want Leelanau County to become like other areas (Door
County, Petoskey)
2. Area's beauty attracting more people
3. Infrastructure bringing more development
4. Lack of understanding of how development occurs (reaction to
obvious change only)
5. No physical "model plan"
6. Lack of a "Land Ethic"
7. Keep current aesthetic values without pricing ourselves out.
8. Capability to implement stated goals

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT MINI-FORUM

SENIOR CITIZEN MEAL SITE #1

Lake Leelanau Fire Hall Station
12 February 1990

ATTENDANCE LIST

Elinor McNeil Gen Gauthier
Gerald McNeil Wilbert Gauthier
Ethel McNeil Dorothy Zeits
Harriet Drow Mildred Kirt
Glen Gauthier Rosie Steffens
Lucy Hominga Al Hominga

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES x NO

HOW?

1. More Businesses
2. Lots of residential homes on roads
3. Traffic
4. Condition of roads
5. Less Farmland
6. Waste Management/disposal/recycling
7. Wetland issues and environmental issues
8. Need for Senior Citizen Housing AND affordable housing for
everyone

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Orchards
2. Along M-22 and M-72
3. Schools - overpopulation/consolidation
4. Recreational facilities are in greater demand

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Traffic
2. Sewage
3. Increase in Taxes
4. Drugs/Crime/Violence

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Parking
2. Pedestrians
3. Bicyclists on secondary roads
4. M-22 and Greilickville
5. Suttons Bay

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. People
2. Traffic - amount of vehicles on the road
3. Traffic - Service trucks on the road
4. Traffic - Recreational vehicles

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Septics close to the lake, creeks, etc.
2. Quality of Life
3. Big Developments
4. Need more jobs that pay a decent wage
5. Drugs and Crime
6. Increased taxation - will push the native out of the county.
7. Concern of where their tax $$ are going.

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT MINI-FORUM

SENIOR CITIZEN MEAL SITE #2

Cedar-Maple City Lions Club
14 February 1990

ATTENDANCE LIST

Praxes Bryant Anna Zientek
Pauline Dean Albert Dean
Martin Flees Alice Flees
Ethel Bugai Stephen Bugai
Ester Balesh Dorothy Stetz
John Stetz Fern Melichar
Dorothy Zeits Kathryn Thornberry
Earl Lund Virginia Haney
Glen Flaska Loretta Miser*Mail Results
Don Miser Leonard Pleva
Matilda Pleva Phyllis Miller
Olive Flaska Lucille Wichern
Virginia Elsenheimer James Elsenheimer
Selma Peplinski Jack O'Grady
Ruth Craker Mary Sheridan
Hazel Davis James Davis
Raymond Hulbert Pauline Pardee

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Population
2. More Building
3. More pollution
4. "Big City" expectations
5. Increasing taxes (too high) (schools, etc)
6. Overpopulating Schools
7. Road conditions (maintenance, right-of-way, etc.)

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Maple City, Cedar
2. Elmwood Township
3. Traverse Lake
4. Farm "fringe" areas (subdivisions near farms)

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Traffic (roads)
2. Lake use (traffic)
3. Bikes; snow machine use
4. Trespassing by bikes, snowmobiles
5. Unequal Zoning Enforcement
6. Solid Waste Disposal (Increase in recycling)
7. Road conditions
8. Need for affordable housing

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Greilickville
2. M-72
3. M-22
4. County Road 616 and M-72
5. County Road 614 and Cherry Bend Rd. Corridor
6. Cedar area - truck traffic
7. Supply trucks near stores (loading)
8. County Road 651 and 616 South of Cedar
9. Septic tanks near water
10. Drinking water wells
11. Bicycle traffic on roads
12. Expanding area without parking
13. Possible "Tourist Train"

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Population/people
2. Desire to be Rich - more businesses, etc.
3. Tourists
4. Conventions (promotion)
5. Special Events
6. Recreation Opportunities

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

'WHY?

1. Live Here
2. Don't want people "close"
3. Increase - cost of living
4. Increase - crime
5. Increase - taxes
6. Unsafe Roads (intersections, curves, etc)
7. Speed on Roads
8. Sanitation
9. Pollution (Ground, water, septic, etc)

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT MINI-FORUM

SENIOR CITIZEN MEAL SITE #3

Suttons Bay Fire Hall
16 February 1990

ATTENDANCE LIST

Agnes H. Barrett Betty Scherf
Jim Scherf Frank Kiessel
Rita Kiessel Fern Jacob
Beatrice Priest Anita Nordfjord
Amelia Beuerle Clara Hodoba
Lena Grayvold Julius Johnson
Dorothy Z6its James Dobson
Ralph Lindley Mary Lindley
Walter Reincke Marjorie Reincke
Jean Youker

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. More Children in School
2. More Traffic
3. Higher Taxes
4. More Crime
5. More Golf Courses
6. More Homes
7. Less Jobs
8. Less Farming
9. More Pollution
10. Fewer places to "rent"

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Rural Areas
2. Along the Lakes
3. In Villages
4. Along Main Highways
5. In the "High Hills" (more houses)
6. Wooded Areas (more development and cutting down of woods)
7. School Buildings (additions)

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. More accidents on roads
2. More "Dope"
3. Less Medical Help
4. Fewer places available to Seniors
5. Fewer meeting places for everyone
6. Increased Crime
7. Increased Valuation of Homes

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Suttons Bay
2. M-22, M-204, Cherry Bend Road
3. Rural Areas
4. Elmwood/Bingham Townships
5. Lakes
6. School Overcrowding

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Population Increase
2. Drugs
3. People Living Longer
4. Tourists
5. Higher "Cost of living"
6. High prices paid for land/homes

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Wonder where it will all end!
2. Increased "Cost of Living"
3. Increasing needs of Senior Citizens
4. What cost will it be to our children?
5. How do we get growth under control?
6. Public Health Conditions
7. Lack of Jobs
8. Air Pollution (Sprays, Pesticides, etc)
9. Traffic Conditions
10. Less Farm Land/Increase in Food Costs
11. Loss of Farm Labor
12. Groundwater

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT KINI-FORUK

SENIOR CIT12EN MEAL SITE #4

Empire Township Hall
20 February 1990

ATTENDANCE LIST

Emily Anderlick Eleanor Ray
Arnold Hansen Richard Larsen
Bette Haney Les Haney
Leota Nowicki Conley Addington
Fern Bolton Marion Attington
Sara Cooper Jim Treat
Gertrude Sutton Bob Evans
Sue Evans Ray Tietze
Pauline Pardee

Staff: T. Dolehanty, T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES X NO

HOW?

1. Young people leaving the area for job opportunities
2. "Resort" or "Retirement" building
3. "Affluent" people buying land; increasing taxes and property
values (causes residents to move out)
4. Low wages and high taxes (combined)
5. Higher cost of living
6. Less "service" from taxes
7. Increase in resort jobs (seasonal)

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Along the Lakes (Inland and Great Lake)
2. Lake Access
3. Multi-family areas (Condos, apartments, etc)
4. Park Service (reducing development)
5. Near Schools

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

1. Zoning/Planning at local level
2. Inadequate Public Transportation
3. Sewer system (lack of)
4. Surface Water Pollution/runoff
5. No septic tank inspections
6. Traffic
7. "Scattered" development
8. No "bike paths" along roads/bike tours
9. Parking

WHERE ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. M-22 (Empire to Leland)(Park Area)(Glen Arbor)
2. Along the Lakes
3. Village areas
4. 616 and 675 (Burdickville)
5. Old Settlers Park area

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. County Government
2. Lack of Planning
3. "Special Interests" controlling local boards
4. Apathy (lack of interest)
5. People afraid to voice opinions
6. Lack of "meeting notice"; lack of publicity
Lack of "subject matter" notice, type is too small
7. Human Nature
8. Lack of "tourist direction" (to water access, local stores,
etc)
9. Inconvenience to local residents

ARE YOU CONCERNED?

YES X NO

WHY?

1. Pollution
2. Lake use by large boats
3. "Affluent" buying land forcing increased taxes and assessment
4. Property damage/vandalism
5. Increased Traffic
6. Drug Use
7. Lack of public protection
8. Public use of "dangerous" areas (North Bar Lake)
9. Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens - individual units
10. Better Animal Control
11. Parking
12. Disregard for private property
13. Lack of posted deer crossing areas

LEELANAU COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT MINI-FORUM

SENIOR CITIZEN MEAL SITE #S

Trinity Lutheran Church-Northport
22 February 1990

ATTENDANCE LIST

Clarissa Flees Clarence Popp
Loretta Popp Ruth N. Kellogg
John Christopherson Gert Kimmerly
Ralph E. Snyder Sigwalda Garthe
Steiner Garthe Phil J. Loreto
Dee D. Loreto Thelma Charter
Florence Hanes Leona Francisco
Charlene Rogers Rudolph Carlson
Jane Carlson Dorothy Zeits
Ida Parker Sherry Haug

Staff: T. Galla

IS LEELANAU COUNTY CHANGING AS A RESULT OF GROWTH?

YES x NO

HOW?

1. Too many people
2. Traffic
3. "City People" wanting the same services in Leelanau County
4. Don't want to smell agriculture, sprays, etc...
5. Wear and tear on roads
6. "Fencing" of f of property by new owners and too many "no
trespassing" signs
7. Increasing Crime
8. Drugs
9. Overcrowded Schools in some locations and decreasing in others
10. "Attraction" of recreational activities brings more people

WHERE ARE GROWTH CHANGES TAKING PLACE IN LEELANAU COUNTY?

1. Suttons Bay
2. Southern 1/2 of County
3. Elmwood Township . 1
4. Leelanau Memorial Hospital
5. Lakeshores - no property for sale
6. Leelanau Township - decrease in.population
7. Homestead

ARE THERE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW GROWTH?

YES X NO

WHAT ARE THEY?

i. Need more nice restaurants year-round
2. Need light industry
3. Inadequate facilities
4. Low income housing is needed in concentrated, not scattered,
areas.
5. Low'wage scale
6. A monopoly on costs in the area (Ex. Limited gas stations and
grocery stores so they charge high prices. Limited full-
service stations for elderly)
7. A monopoly on costs for air travel
8. "Cost of Living" too high - prices aimed at resorters.
9. Increase in taxes
10. Money earned in the county goes to Traverse City or other
areas and doesn't find its way back.
11. Money spent for food and clothing is spent in other
counties.

WHERE: ARE THESE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH LOCATED?

1. Village of Northport
2. Schools
3. Hospital
4. Churches-low enrollment and support
5. Sewers
6. Fire and Police Protection
7. M-22
8* M-72

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS?

1. Losing our children - moving out of area to make a living.
2. Excessive cost of property
3. Limited property to buy
4. Increase in taxes
5. Elected officials - change them
6. No affordable recreation for all ages in the county
insurance liability for recreation areas (Ex. Northport ski
area, etc) is too high.
7. Can't pay for people to service recreation areas-low wages
(Ex. lifeguards at Northport beaches).
8. Tourists don't "leave" money in the county
9. Tourists using roads and facilities
10. "Window shopping" by tourists vs. "Buying"

AM YOU CONCERNED?

YES :k NO

WHY?
1. This is our home.
2. We want to keep the area beautiful
3. "Locals" bring some problems onto themselves by not helping
tourists.
4. Water Quality
5. Development
6. Destroying natural environment
7. Wetlands
8. Buying up hills-losing scenic areas
9. "City people" expectations.
10. Roads will be inadequate and we won't be able to maintain
them.
11. "Porsche races" in Northport, and inadequate bicycle paths
12. Big events cost the local community - don't make that much
money from the tourists.
13. County does not consider welfare of Senior Citizens compared
to other county areas. Need for more Senior Citizens Centers
14. Seniors moving in are "well to do" and county doesn't
recognize local seniors who need help.
15. Senior Housing is needed.
16. Need to bring money back into Leelanau County.

NO@
CTR,,LIBRARY
E
III
3 6668 141,1897 8 .