[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









                                                              0

                                                                                                             I  t







                                                                              b






                                                                         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

                                                i













                                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


























                                         iv


















         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.



                                            2








         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



                                           3









                 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

               ï¿½ Agriculture   -   Co-Sponsored by     the   Leelanau    County
                 Cooperative Extension service, facilitated by
                 James Bardenhagen, Co-operative Extension Director
                 February 19, 1990, Elmwood Township Center

               ï¿½ 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

               ï¿½ 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:

               ï¿½ Lake Leelanau Fire Department Hall
                 February 12, 1990

               ï¿½ Cedar/Maple City Lions Club
                 February 14, 1990

               ï¿½ Suttons Bay Fire Department Hall
                 February 16, 1990

               ï¿½ Empire Township Hall
                 February 20, 1990

               ï¿½ 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".

                                           4









         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".

                                             6









         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

                                         7









          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.



                                            8









                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.








































                                       9

















              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

                                         10








               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.



                                           12









          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

                                          13









                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)












































                                        14
















              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


                                               15









               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.

                                          16









         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.


























                                         17

















                   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

                                               18








               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.


                                          19










              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.




                                          20









         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.


                                          21









              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

































                                          22

















                     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..



                                         23









          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.

                                            24











         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.






                                          25










          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








































                                          26

















                      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.


                                         27









               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

                                           28








              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.



                                         29













         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




































                                        30

















                                   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.


                                               31








               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

                                          32








              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

                                          33








               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.


                                          34









        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














                                         35



















          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

                                           36









                  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.

                  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.

































                                           37



 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.












                                         39


















                                   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.










                                         40


















                                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






                                        41



















                               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.




















                                         42


















                               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.





                                         43

















                         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









                                         44

















                            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.













                                         45



















                                        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











                                             46


















                                   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.





                                          47
















                            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.


























                                         48




 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

                                         50









          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

                                          51








         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

                                         52


















                         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



                                          53











         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




                                         54










         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













                                         55


















                        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




                                         56










         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







                                         57











         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.


                                        58











         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.
































                                         59


















                        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












                                         60










         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)



















                                         61










         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"

                                         62











         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.

























                                        63


















                        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




                                         64










         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





                                         65











        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




















                                        66













         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

























                                         67

















                        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









                                        68










         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


                                         69












         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













                                         70












         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

















                                         71


















                        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






















                                         72











         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









                                         73











         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.































                                         74

















                        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
















                                         75













         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







                                         76











         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)










                                         77


















                        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























                                        78











         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








                                          79











         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




















                                         80
















                        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
























                                         81









        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





                                        82










       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


















                                  83

















                        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





























                                        84

















         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























                                         85














         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


















                                        86














         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.






                                        87



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