Preserving Harbor: Zoning, Redevelopment, and the Future of Our Town

Balancing Growth, Local Control, and Community Values in the Face of RRC Influence

Feb 06, 2025

Sign up for City Emails: Link
Review the schedule of Commission meetings, town halls, and open houses discussing zoning code updates: Combined Planning Commission Meeting, Town Hall and Open House Calendar (updated 1/25/2025).
All zoning meetings which are broadcast and recorded use this Zoom link
Zoom has added a live transcription feature that provides real-time, voice-activated closed captioning in your Zoom meetings. Once the host enables the setting, all participants can see the captions either as subtitles in the meeting window as people are speaking, or as a full transcript in a side window. If you are listening on ‘YouTube’ click on the “CC” button. Easy to read and “hear” the conversations.
The City Council next meets on Monday February 17 at 7 p.m. Zoom YouTube
Planning Commission meeting Thursday, February 6, at 5:30 p.m. Zoom YouTube
View our website or provide comments on our Facebook page.

Share We All Love Harbor Springs with Your Neighbor

Details

Heads UP! TOMORROW, Thursday …at 5:30 PM

Planning Commission meeting at City Hall.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation from the City Planner, Beckett & Raeder, was to begin reviewing the Repealed Zoning Code #429 over a series of meetings, reviewing a few sections in each meeting.

This week's meeting will review Articles 1, 11, 12, and 13.
On Thursday, February 20th, the Planning Commission will review articles 6 & 8.
The remaining articles will be reviewed in meetings through early June. But the schedule is likely to change with community input.

These four Articles are posted on the City Website. Please read them to be sure it’s the spirit of a zoning code that YOU want - if not, speak up. Articles from the 2005 Code are posted on the City of Harbor Springs website here: Link

How can the community be prepared? We have posted the 2005 Zoning Code Articles here: Link

We ask the Planning Commission, is this upcoming meeting tomorrow a review of the “template” of the Repealed Zoning Code #429 or are the Commissioners and the City Planner going to suggest that these Articles are fine the way they are written?

Let’s work together to discuss to figure this out.

Questions you can ask:

Could it be the Articles in the 2005 zoning code are simpler, and easier for staff and the public to read?
Is the 2024 Zoning Code too complicated? We better listen and talk about it. It’s not boiler play stuff, boring or dry.
For example, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) section went from 2 1/2 pages to 6 pages. It’s fair to say there is new information in this Article 11. A lot of power is conferred to those who sit on the ZBA - so it’s really important to get good people appointed and to understand Article 11.
Article 12: Here’s what the 2024 Articles look like. We have selected a few pieces for our discussion.

This is where it gets tricky, as was explained. The 2005 Zoning Code was not searchable, and is the 2024 code more nimble and easier to read?

For example, In Article 24 of the 2005 Zoning Code, the “Public Hearing Announcement to all neighbors within 300 feet of the property will be notified” is 2.5 pages long. Now in the 2024 Zoning Code Article 11 that we are reviewing, this involvement of the NEIGHBORS is covered in 6 pages. What has changed?

Remember, the details in these Articles of the 2024 Zoning Code are from a RRC reviewed and accepted zoning code which, since has been repealed - so these Articles should be questioned, discussed, and the discussions tabled until the community has a general understanding of the direction we want for Harbor Springs.

For our readers of this newsletter, we have been reviewing our current 2005 zoning code, comparing it against the repealed 2024 code and Petoskey’s zoning code, which is very similar to our 2024 code and also a Beckett & Raeder work product. Remember Petoskey is RRC certified community.

There are many reasons for the Harbor Springs City Council to NOT become involved in meeting the requirements for becoming a Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC). The RRC does not Keep Harbor Harbor.

Influence on Decision-Making: For example, a city planner might push for policies or development projects that focus on economic growth at the expense of environmental or social concerns. (More on this subject in a future newsletter. ) Beckett & Raeder is Harbor Springs City Planner and they must be guided by our City Council, with a City Council vote to uncouple from the RRC /MEDC certification process.

What is Home Rule?

The Home Rule Cities Act Act 279 of 1909) specifies that city charters must provide for the process of enacting an ordinance. Ordinances are formal actions by the council and constitute local legislation. If the council wants to change a duly adopted ordinance, it must amend, repeal, or rescind the ordinance.

What Is An Ordinance?

Ordinances are written laws adopted by a city’s governing authority that are permanent and enforceable (unless amended or repealed by a new ordinance).

Common examples of ordinances include:

Rezoning of property and annexation of property
Text amendments to local zoning or land development regulations
Alcohol and public safety regulations

The power for cities and villages to legislate by adopting ordinances, that is to make laws, is expressly granted by the Michigan Constitution, Link.

Explaining a City Charter 101

This explanation shows how the home rule concept has to be guarded and monitored if it is to remain healthy and meaningful in local communities.

Enshrined in the Michigan Home Rule City Act (Act 279 of 1909) is the idea that municipalities have the sovereign right through their City Charter to prohibit the State from gaining local control or challenging the town’s autonomy and self-governance.

What is a City Charter? A charter is like a local constitution. It lists procedures for operating a local government, establishes the powers of elected officials, creates safeguards against misuse of authority, and provides paths for citizen involvement. (Article VII Section 22)

Since Michigan is a home rule state, which gives the citizenry the right and responsibility to form its own government, citizens write the charter and determine how the local government will exercise its powers. Our charter was adopted in 1950, with amendments in 1979 and 1993.

Mandatory charter provisions include the election of a mayor and other officials, holding elections, and other administrative duties. The city charter helps to ensure stability and continuity of the municipal government while addressing the unique needs and priorities of the community.

As a warning, in recent years major state restrictions on local taxing and spending power have been legislated or imposed: uniform budgeting, accounting, auditing requirements and procedures, exemptions from and limitations on property tax, and suspension of the broad home rule excise taxing power. Gradually the increased powers of the state have reduced powers at local levels. We are forewarned.

Argument about the RRC - Plus - Minus

When a community participates in the Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) program through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), it does not lose its Home Rule authority. The Home Rule principle, as established under Michigan law, allows municipalities to govern themselves through local charters, ordinances, and decision-making processes as long as they don’t conflict with state or federal laws.

Why Are Communities Cautious

Beckett & Raeder as a City Planner, works with the RRC in multiple cities.

Some municipalities worry that adopting RRC recommendations influences local policy decisions over time, especially regarding zoning, permitting processes, or public participation requirements.
Notionally, RRC increases grants for City projects. However, the bulk of state grants have been small technical assistance grants for updating zoning.
To avoid conflicts, communities often customize RRC best practices to align with their local charters and ordinances. This is a deliberative process.
Formal withdrawals from RRC have been rare – Dexter is a clear case – but it is not uncommon for communities to stall or delay the process due to local political opposition or shifting priorities. The MEDC does not penalize communities for taking more time; RRC is a voluntary, self-paced program. However, communities that do not complete or maintain the certification simply do not get the full benefits (such as certain grant eligibilities or the “Redevelopment Ready” marketing boost - see below).
Why become redevelopment ready? To expand development. To be vibrant and competitive, Michigan communities must be ready for development. This involves planning for new investment and reinvestment, identifying assets and opportunities, and focusing limited resources. Certified Redevelopment Ready Communities® attract and retain businesses, offer superior customer service and have a streamlined development approval process, making pertinent information available around-the-clock for anyone to view.
Over 300 communities have engaged but only ~25% are actually certified. The program is “free” to join, but not free in terms of the staff hours and sometimes consultant costs required. Without strong commitment, some cities simply stagnate partway – which could be seen as a failure of the program to maintain momentum in those cases. The tension between state-level experts and grassroots preferences is an undercurrent in critiques of RRC.
Loss of Local Control – Governance Issues: Perhaps the most striking criticism is that some RRC best practices impinge on local democratic control. The Ann Arbor Independent editorial board, for example, sharply criticized the program’s requirement that final development approvals be handled by the Planning Commission (rather than the elected city council) as “an effort to streamline… that creates a powerful entity not answerable to voters.”
Dexter’s decision to back out of RRC was rooted in this concern – council members felt they would be abdicating their responsibility to oversee major development. In their view, a state program was essentially forcing a change in their city’s decision-making structure, which they found unacceptable. This touches on a broader tension: home rule vs. state-driven standards.
While RRC is voluntary, to get certified a community may need to amend charters or ordinances in ways that some residents and officials feel reduce accountability (e.g., giving more power to professional staff or appointed boards - ie: Administrative Control). The fear is that important local development decisions could end up in the hands of planners or consultants who follow a generic formula, rather than elected leaders attuned to local sentiment.
However, the RRC’s effectiveness is uneven – it tends to work best in communities that already have buy-in from local leadership and a willingness to grow. In places where there is division or complacency, RRC has been less successful (either not completed, or completed but with controversy). The program’s voluntary nature means that its impact is ultimately determined by local political will.

**Thank you to Ai and WLHS researchers for these explanations. Sources: This report has cited information from official MEDC press releases, program documents, local news coverage (e.g. Petoskey News-Review, Daily Press Escanaba), and commentary pieces that provide insight into community perspectives. Key sources include the MEDC’s MiPlace RRC webpage and map MEDC press releases and We Love Harbor Springs Newsletters on community certifications among others.

Editorial

February 3rd, 2025

Harbor Springs City Council Meeting

Submitted for the public record as a request for a new business agenda item

Honorable Mayor Graham; Councilperson Behrmann; Councilperson Melke; Councilperson Motschall; Councilperson Reeve

Re: New Business Agenda Item for A Special Meeting - Review of Resolution 8762, dated May 2019

To the City Council:

Like the City manager, I do not live within the city, but for the past 30 years, Harbor Springs is my home, I run an equestrian business under the HS Chamber of Commerce Open for Business flag, and I work with WeAll Love Harbor Springs, a non-profit based here in Harbor Springs.

I am here tonight at a City Council meeting to ask City Council to begin the personal self-education and the sequential steps to decouple Harbor Springs from further RRC/MEDC certification.

Over the course of the last year, it has become evident that RRC/MEDC zoning requirements involved in Harbor Springs existed in at least 20 to 35 % of the repealed 439 zoning code. If not more. We are not sure.

In fact, we are surrounded by RRC/MEDC towns, and we will benefit from their growth, and by decoupling from the RRC, Harbor Springs can be saved from bureaucratic upheaval. It seems we are drowning in paperwork, massively long in the teeth and tongue, and meeting agendas. Our City Planners, Beckett and Raeder and our City Management need the immediacy of City Council’s guidance.

If Beckett and Raeder are not guided – the movie with the golf groundhog and the zoning repetition of one year ago may become Harbor Springs legacy. Our City Manager has said multiple times, at multiple meetings, I attended, that further involvements with the RRC is a community’s choice.

We do not want to spend $45,000 again this year on the City Planners to remake Harbor Springs in the image of another RRC city.

Why am I bringing this up at tonight’s meeting? It is only a City Council vote that can uncouple Harbor Springs from the RRC/MEDC - but it has to be the community and the Planning Commission who gives this recommendation to City Council - so I am asking City Council and the Mayor to begin this deliberation, and to hear our recommendation before the building of the zoning proceeds further down the track.

The uncoupling of our town from RRC certification can set us free to be an authentic town.

We have learned through the WLHS research that many grant opportunities are available to Harbor Springs without further RRC involvement. Money should not be a reason to further certify Harbor Springs as a RRC community.

Recently we met in person and by zoom with the RRC Northwest Michigan representative Pablo Majano and his supervisor. We asked questions and received answers to some questions – like no money needs to be returned and Harbor Springs can remain as an “engaged” community, with the benefit of good practices that the City Manager has said multiple times are helpful and were already in place.

As I personally have attended each CC; PC; DDA; RRC meeting for one year, as an observer, it is evident to me that when one does pay attention, we as a city can do better without the RRC - and now 6 year’s since the community became involved - it is the City Council’s moment to come to this same conclusion, and very soon. A letter written to the RRC is the only step needed.

Again, I repeat: It is only a City Council vote that can uncouple Harbor Springs from the RRC/MEDC - but it has to be the community and the Planning Commission who gives this recommendation to Council - so on behalf of a large citizenry, we are recommending CC to begin this deliberation and before the building of the zoning proceeds further down the track. The uncoupling of our town from RRC certification can set us free to be an authentic town.

Please and thank you,

Sincerely,

Karin Reid Offield, Harbor Springs Resident

Taking a break from Politics…Let’s Imagine

The latest (wildly expensive) idea that the city is pondering is an underground bike path under Main St. that would cost $800,000 (surely to increase by the time it would ever be started). It’s at the entrance to town, and would further reduce natural beauty with ‘urban scaping’. Adding this to the city’s current campaign to raise $500,000 for a portion of sidewalk on the bluff, and we’re at a whopping $1.3 million dollars raised from the community?

City Planners Beckett & Raeder, Harbor, Inc., and the City Parks and Recreation Department have designed the bike path by filling the ravine at the entrance to town with cement, creating an urban park with a bike path to downtown that currently is used for walkers, joggers and dog-walkers.

A simple solution like re-striping city roads to accommodate bike lanes offers an alternative to building out underground or unwieldy bike paths. Many communities have used redesigned streets to accommodate bike traffic, creating multi-purpose avenues for exercise and transportation combined.

In addition to making it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, officials have found that narrower driving lanes result in less speeding and lane swerving, as well as fewer traffic accidents. A recent project to remove existing striping and restripe a critical connecting street cost just $4 per foot, or $8,000 for 2,000 ft. of road.

Or bikes could just come off 119 at Beach and ride into town like they have for 100 years.

In a community that prides itself on its’ natural beauty, is this plan the best stewardship and use of the green, wildlife filled ravine, and tree canopy? Especially at the entrance to town and juxtaposed to the lake views and historic homes? Let’s all talk!