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





                             [FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
                                               OFTHE
                                     LEELANAU COUNTY
                            GROW7111 MANAGEMENT PLAN
                           CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITME

                                Growth Management Plan Working Paper #4













                                  r






                                                   MOO
                                                    bp





                                              Prepared by the
                                   Leelanau Goijnty Planning Department

                                              Second Edition
                                               Aprii 1, 1991






                                                 This Document is
                                               Printed on Recycled Paper










                                                          FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                                                       OF THE
                         LEELANAU COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                                    CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM117EE


                                                                     GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                                                  WORIUNG PAPER NUMBER FOUR

                                                                  SECOND EDITION - APRIL 1, 1991


                                                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS




                             LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS                                                  ........................................................ iii


                             LEELANAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                               ................................................................ iii


                             LEELANAU COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM=E                                   ........................................................................................ iii


                             LEEL-ANAU COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                 PROJECTSTAFF                 ............................................................................................................................ iv


                             LEELANAU COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                 PROJECT CONSULTANT                        ............................................................................................................ iv


                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                          ..................................................................................................................v


                             CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION                              ....................................................................................................1
                             Major Efforts of Phase I            ........................................................................................................................1
                             Public Participation            ..............................................................................................................................1
                             Identification of State-of-the-Art Growth Management Techniques                                   ............................................2
                             Review of the Statutory and Constitutional Framework                              ................................................................2
                             The Go/No Go Decision                 ......................................................................................................................3


                             CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                    ......................................................................................4


                             CHAPTER 3: PLANNING OPTIONS                                ............................................................................................6
                             Traditional Planning Efforts -The "Usual Approach                          .. ....................................................................6
                             Common Problems Associated with the "Usual Approach                                .. ..........................................................6
                             Other Types of Plans             ............................................................................................................................7
                             The Situation in Leelanau County                   ......................................................................................................9



                                                                                                  i

                                                                                 Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                                     113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 464
                                                                                        Lelp-nd, M1 49654-0464
                                                                                          Ph. (616) 256-9812












                                                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)



                                   CHAPTER 4: THE ROLE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
                                            IN FUTURE PLANNING                        .................................................................................................... 11
                                   Characteristics of the Final Plan               ........................................................................................................ 11
                                   Scope of the New Plan              ........................................................................................................................ 11
                                   Public Participation in the Planning Process                      .................................................................................. 12
                                   Components of the Plan               ...................................................................................................................... 12
                                   Legislative Efforts          ................................................................................................................................ 12
                                   Role of Township and Village Government                         .................................................................................... 12
                                   Options for Involving Municipal Officials                    ........................................................................................ 13
                                   Role of County Government                  .............................................................................................................. 13
                                   Regional Participation             ........................................................................................................................ 14
                                   Initiating the Suggested Planning Process                    ........................................................................................ 14
                                   Parallel Processes           ................................................................................................................................ 14



                                   CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION                           ........................................................................................................ 16
                                   Conclusions of the CAC               ...................................................................................................................... 16
                                   Economic Base                                                                                                                          17
                                   Transportation          ...................................................................................................................................... 17
                                   Natural Resources            ................................................................................................................................ 17
                                   Solid Waste Management                .................................................................................................................... 17
                                   Water and Waste Water                ...................................................................................................................... 17
                                   Community Facilities and Services                   .................................................................................................... 17
                                   Intergovernmental Relations                .............................................................................................................. 17
                                   Recreation         ............................................................................................................................................ 17
                                   Housing Trends            .................................................................................................................................... 18
                                   Land Use Planning / Regulation                  ......................................................................................................... 18


                                   CHAPTER 6: ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS                                           ...................................................................... 19



                                   FOOTNOTES               ...................................................................................................................................... 23













                                                                                        First Edition Issued August 27, 1990
                                                                                        Second Edition issued April 1, 1991











                                                                                       Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                                           113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 464
                                                                                              Leland, MI 49654-0464
                                                                                                Ph. (816) 256-9812











                                                  1990 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



                                                  1990 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
                                              GROWTH MANAGEMENT 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 (Dick) N. Wilson



                                                                 iii
                                                      Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                         113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 464
                                                           Leland, Ml Z54-0464
                                                            Ph. (616) 256-9812












                                                                                1990 LEELANAU COUNTY
                                                                           GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                                                                         PROJECT STAFF




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

                                              Trudy J. Galla                                                            Pat Stratton -
                                              Assistant Planner                                                         Administrative Secretary

                                              Joyce Pleva                                                               Becky Rauch
                                              Planning Department Secretary                                             Clerk Typist II







                                                                                  PROJECT CONSULTANT



                                                                               Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP, President
                                                                                Planning and Zoning Center, Inc.
                                                                                         302 S. Waverly Road
                                                                                           Lansing, MI 48917


























                                                                                                       iv

                                                                                       Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                                           113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 464
                                                                                              Leland, Ml 49654-0464
                                                                                                Ph. (616) 256-9812
























                                                                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENT





                           Leelanau County wishes to acknowledge the work of the Intergovernmental Growth
                           Management Consortium, a group of five (5) Oakland County, Michigan communi-
                           ties that have joined together in an effort to identify ways in which to better manage
                           growth. These communities include:

                                  * West Bloomfield Township
                                  * Waterford Township
                                       Rochester Hills
                                       Oakland Township, and
                                       Independence Township

                           The pioneering efforts of these five (5) communities, initiated in 1988, has provided
                           Leelanau County with both sound technical guidance for its project and a strong
                           motivating force in the County's pursuit of a rational growth management program.

















                                                                                               V

                                                                               Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                                   113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 464
                                                                                     Leland, Ml @=-0464
                                                                                       Ph. (616) 256-9812










                                                                       Chapter One

                                                               INTRODUCTION


                 This document is the fourth of a series ofworking papers          spectrum of thoughts, opinions, aspirations and fears of
                 prepared for Leelanau County as part of the process to            Leelanau Countycitizens pertaining to the development
                 update/revise the Leelanau County Comprehensive                   process. Citizen participation was solicited through
                 Development Plan. Working Paper Number Four                       three (3) primary vehicles:
                 summarizes and provides an analysis of a series of ten
                 (10) recommendations of the Leelanau County Growth                1)    Citizen Advisory Committesi - a special advisory
                 Management Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. The                   committee to the Planning Commission / County Board
                 adoption of this working paper marks the end of Phase I           comprised of more than 30 citizens broadly representa-
                 of this planning project. The guiding objective of Phase          tive of the geographic and functional interest of the
                 I of the update/revision process is the identification of         county. Any other citizens with an interest were also
                 what has been termed the "best choice growth manage-              permitted to attend all CAC meetings and a core group
                 ment approach" for Leelanau County.                               of about 65 attended nearly every meeting.

                 This working paper is intended to provide a partial basis         2)    Growth Management Forums - a series of twelve
                 for discussion by the Leelanau County Planning Com-               (12) public meetings which involved systematic querying
                 mission and the Leelanau County Board of Commis-                  of identifiable interest groups in the county (See Work-
                 sioners as they investigate, discuss and deliberate upon          ing Paper Number 1). Over 265 people participated in
                 growth management issues in Lzelanau County.                      the Forums.


                 In Phase I the county aspired to develop the                      The citizen participation process endeavored
                 "best choice growth management process".                          to identify a broad spectrum of thoughts,
                                                                                   opinions, aspirations and fears of Leelanau
                                                                                   County citizens pertaining to the development
                 The recommendations of the Citizen Advisory Commit-               process.
                 tee (CAC) can best be understood when placed in the
                 perspective of the overall comprehensive plan update
                 project. In Phase I the county aspired to develop the             3)     Public Opinion Survey - an independently con-
                 "best choice growth management process". The meth-                ducted, scientific, random sample survey of county citi-
                 odologywhichwas used to achieve definition of the "best           zens on a broad spectrum of development issues, prob-
                 choice process" consisted of three (3) major efforts.             lems and opportunities (See Working Paper Number 2).
                 These efforts included citizen participation, idcntifica-         A corollary public opinion survey of local elected offi-
                 tion of state-of-the-art planning/growth management
                 technologies, and review of statutory/constitutional frame-       cials and appointed planning officials was conducted as
                 work for growth management in the State of Michigan.              part of the public opinion survey process (See Working
                                                                                   Paper Number 3). Key observations from these surveys
                                                                                   included:
                               Ma@or Efforts of Phase I                               a.    Of the actions deemed "most important" for
                                                                                   Lcelanau County to take, a coordinated planning effort
                 Public Partic4pation                                              between county, township, and village governments was
                                                                                   strongly indicated by citizens and local officials alike.
                 The first major effort in Phase I involved an intense                b.    County citizens indicated   a fairly high level of
                 initiative in the area of citizen participation. The citizen      dissatisfaction regarding the enforcement of local zon-
                 participation process endeavored to identify a broad

                                                                               1

                                                                  Loolanau County Planning Deparonent
                                                                     113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 54a
                                                                       Leland, Ml 49654-054a
                                                                         Ph. (018) 256-9612












              ing ordinances, while local officials expressed great sat-          provided technical assistance to the overall project and
              isfaction with same.                                                specifically interactedwith County staff and the CAC on
                                                                                  the topic of state-of-the-art planning in Michigan.
                  c.    Citizens and local officials favor controlled growth
              that will not result in damage to the environment.
                  d. The capacity of roads in Leelanau County for                            Review of the Statutory and
              handling traffic, the availability of affordable housing,                       Constitutiond Framework
              and the type and number of year-round jobs available
              were listed among elements citizens and local officials             A third major effort in Phase I consisted of a thorough
              were: most dissatisfied with.                                       review of the statutory and constitutional framework for
                                                                                  growth management in the state of Michigan. The end
                  e.   Though current regulations would allow the                 product of this effort is an identification for the CAC, the
              County's population to swell to over 315,000, the major-            Leelanau County Planning Commission, and the Board
              ity of citizens and local officials would prefer to restrict        of Commissioners of the opportunities and limitations
              the population of the County to less than 50,000 resi-              of the various laws concerning growth management in
              dents.                                                              the St ateofMichigan. In effect, this effort was an inven-
                                                                                  tory of the growth management techniques and mcas-
                                                                                  ures legally available to the county and local govern-
              Of the actions deemed "most important" for                          ments in Leelanau County. Principle advisors in this
              Leelanau County to take, a coordinated                              process'wcre Gerald A. Fisher and Mark A- Wyckoff.
                                                                                  Mr. Fisher is an attorney with the firm Kohl, Secrest,
              planning effort between county, township,                           Wardle, Lynch,Clarkand Hamptonof FarmingtonHills
              and village governments was strongly                                and has an active practice in growth management issues.
              indicated by citizens and local officials alike.                    He and Mr. Wyckoff are currently working with a coali-
                                                                                  tion of local governments in Oakland County, the Inter-
                                                                                  governmental Growth Management Consortium, who
                                                                                  are intent upon developing a workable approach to
                                                                                  growth management in that rapidly growing county.
                       Identification of State-of-the-Art                         Their effort with the Consortium has resulted in some
                     Growth Management Techniques                                 specific proposals for legislative reform in the State of
                                                                                  Michigan. (See Existing Growth Management Tech-
              Thesecond major effort in Phase I was identification of             niques and PropqEA Legislation for Michigan May,
              the state-of-the-art of local government planning/growth            1990).
              management techniques. This aspect of Phase I involved              In the end, when the three (3) major efforts described
              research by county staff members into successful/rcpli-
              cable planning/growth management efforts from around                above were concluded and the results compiled and
              the state and nation. Principally, this task was accom-             analyzed, the CAC was asked to formulate findings and
              plished by workingwith the American Planning Association            recommendations to the Planning Commission and the
              (APA) and the Michigan Society of Planning Officials                Board of Commissioners for the "best choice growth
              (MSPO). Significant participation and input was ob-                 management process" for Leelanau County.
              taincd from the Planning and Zoning Center, Inc. of                 Implicit in the charge to the CAC to develop          .a best
              Lansing. The effort also consisted of interactions be-              choice growth management approach is that such an
              tween county staff and the CAC with suitably qualified              approach be, in the first instance, an intergovernmental
              technical advisors. The primary "outside expert" con-               approach. This conclusion is drawn in recognition of the
              sulted throughout this project was -Mark A- Wyckoff,                fact that, at present, there are sixteen (16) units of gov-
              AICP, President of the Planningand Zoning Center, Inc.              ernment engaged in growth management activities (i.e.
              and publisher of Planninp, and Zoning News. Mark is                 planning, zoning regulations, etc.) in Leelanau County.
              well respected throughout Michigan and the nation as a
              serious, capable and innovative practitioner of success-            The governmental units include eleven (11) townships,
              ful growth managem     ent at the local level. Mark has             thtee (3) villages, one (1) city and one (1) county. , An

                                                                              2

                                                                 Leelanau County Planning DeparoymW
                                                                    113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                      [email protected]!1_ t!@nw











                   axiom of the comprehensive plan update/revision proc-
                   ess is that a comprehensive, integrated and consistent
                   approach supported by the County and all local govern-
                   ments within thecounty, eachwith well defined roles and
                   responsibilities, is the optimum approach to effective          An aDdom of the comprehensive plan update/
                   growth management.                                              revision process is that a comprehensive,
                                                                                   integrated and consistent approach &4*Mrted
                                The Go/No Go Decision                              by the County and all local governments
                                                                                   within the county, each with well defined roles
                                                                                   and responsbilifies, is the opfimurn approach
                   At the end of Phase 1, the work program adopted by the          to effective growth management.
                   Planning Commission and Board of Commissioneis called
                   for a "Go / No Go" decision. This was really a decision
                   as to the feasibilityof implementation of an overall inter-
                   governmental approach to growth management as op-
                   posed to a more traditional, separate County govern-
                   ment approach.



































                                                                               3

                                                                   L"anau County Planning DepartnisM
                                                                      113 Grand Ave.. P.O. Box 546
                                                                        Leland, MI 49&-A.OUO
                                                                         Ph. (616) 2W9el2









                                                                      Chapter Two

                                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


               In June, 1989 Leelanau County officially began a project           Ideally, this techniquewould involve all of the local units
               ultimately designed to revise its outdated Comprehen-              of government in the County in a consistent, integrated
               sive Development Plan. County officials agree the Plan             approach to growth management. Ile best way to
               currently in effect, adopted in 1975, does not provide             accomplish this goal is to involve as many County citi-
               adequate guidance for today's decisions. During the past           zens as possible in the actual thinking process.
               several years development-related controversies have
               flared in virtually all areas of the County. County officials      Involving people in the planning process means ac-
               and an increasing number of permanent and seasonal                 knowledging that everyone has something of value to
               residents believe those controversies are due, in part, to         contribute. This system seeks to avoid setting up citi-
               the lack of an overall "Plan" or system for dealing with           zens, developers, environmentalists, or local govern-
               the management of the growth that is occurring. The                ments as "the enemy". Recognition of this fundamental
               County's popularity and desirable location are contrib-            can change the dynamics of growth management from
               uting to the problem. Increasing population and inade-             "us against them" to "we're all in this together".
               quately directed growth have great potential to exert
               significant pressure on the "quality of life" which has
               historically been Lxelanau County's hallmark.                      Involving people in the planning process
               When considering this essential planning project, County           means acknowledging that eve[yone has
               leaders saw an opportunity to approach comprehensive               something ofvalue to contribute. This systei n
               planning in a unique way. Tle traditional approach to              seeks to avoid setting up citizens, developers,
               community planning assumes an internal effort by the               environmentalists, or local govemments; as
               responsible governing agency. Generally speaking, this             'Ihe enemy". Reaxjnition of this fundamental
               approach often means less risk, less chance for Criticism
               and opposition from administrators or elected officials.           can change the dynamics of growth
               As stated in the text Taking Charge: HowCommunities                management from "Lis against them" to "we're
               are Planning their Futu        the newer, more open ap-            all in this together".
               proaches (such as that being undertaken in Leelanau
               County) bring to the planning effort the combined re-
               sources of the community - both public and private.
               These strategies require new management approaches                 Those involved in planning realize a successful commu-
               and techniques. Progress is made by consensus rather               nity planning program does not simply "happen". Proj-
               than by directive. 'Mose involved in managing the proj-            ectsupporters must develop an understanding of growth
               ect master new methods of leadership, taking risks by              policies as they currently exist. They must also be willing
               giving up some traditional control but increasing the              to communicate their concerns and ideas, work with
               likelihood of positive community support and benefit.              anyone else officially or unofficially associated with the
                                                                                  plan, and be willing to develop an understanding with
                                                                                  fellow citizens regarding issues of conflict.
               Those involved in managing the project                             'Me Citizen Advisory Committee was the focus of an
               master new methods of leadership, taking                           intense nine (9) month exercise that took into account
               risks by giving up some traditional corffol                        the basic principals discussed above. The Committee
               but increasing the likelihood of positive                          was introduced to a number of new growth management
               community support and benefit.                                     techniques, exposed to extensive data regarding the current
                                                                                  state of planning in Leelanau County, and subjected to
                                                                                  an immense body of publicopinions regarding the future


                                                                              4

                                                                 Leelanau County Planning Departnwnl:
                                                                    113 Gniind Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                      LakM Ml 49854-05M
                                                                        Ph. (@116) 256-9812












                                                                                      of Leelanau County. The analysis and recommendations
                             The Anal Recommendations                                 that follow are the subject of Working Paper Numbe
                         of the Citizen Advisory Committee                            Four.
                                                                                      Participation in this process to date has been excep-
                                                                                      tional. Nearly 1200 individuals have chosen to partake in
                   The final recommendations of the CAC are as follows:               this unique process with many individuals choosing to
                                                                                      attend more than one event. The CAC has spent many
                   1. Forward Working Paper Number 4 to all elected and               hours as a group deliberating on the facts and opinions
                   appointed planning officials in Leelanau County.                   related to the critically important growth management
                                                                                      issues facing Leelanau County communities. It has been
                   2 Begin work on a unified physical County comprehen-               estimated that the group directly spent more than 1400
                   sive land use plan based on the characteristics of a poli-         person hours in a "think tank" mode during the first nine
                   cies plan, strategic plan and growth management plan.              (9) months of the project. This does not include the
                                                                                      many hours invested in meeting with various community
                   3. Promote growth management in the County in terms                groups and in face-to-face discussions with concerned
                   of the County as a geographic unit, not simply as a                fellow citizens. Thus, the CAC's Phase I recommenda-
                   governmental unit.                                                 tions are the product of a great deal of reflection, analysis
                                                                                      and dialogue. These recommendations are deserving of
                   4. Invite, encourage and promote participation of county,          very careful review and consideration by all individuals
                   township and village officials in the county-wide growth           concerned about the future of Leelanau County.
                   management planning process.

                   5. Suggest townships and villages who are creating or
                   updating their individual master/comprehensive plans               ... the CAC's Phase I remmmendations are
                   work with the county planning department to mesh such              the product of a great deal of reflection,
                   plans with the county-wide growth management plan-                 analysis         and        dialogue.                These
                   ning project as it progresses.                                        - wrynerxialk)m are deserving of vefy careful
                   6. Immediately establish the Leelanau Quality Growth               review and consideration by all individuals
                   Alliance (LQGA).                                                   concerned about the future of Leelanau
                   7. Through the annual budget processes, encourage                  County.
                   county, township and village officials to publicly commit
                   additional resources to the program, and seek where
                   possible and relevant, outside funding assistance.

                   8. Aggressively support the efforts of the Intergovern-
                   mental Growth Management Consortium in its efforts
                   to pass new legislation to allow use of many growth
                   management tools not presently available to Michigan
                   communities.


                   9. Begin work that can be undertaken simultaneously
                   with theworkof the Leelanau Quality Growth Alliance.

                   10. Continue general public education efforts.

                   Each of these recommendations is detailed in the "Action
                   Recommendations" chapter of this working paper.



                                                                                  5

                                                                     UnkLnau County PLanning Depwonent
                                                                        113 GMnd Ave., P.O. Box 5a
                                                                           Leland, M1 49654-o54a
                                                                            Ph. (61M 256-0612










                                                                 Chapter -ffiree
                                                     PLANNING OPTIONS


                        Traditional Planning Efforts -                       goals and objectives of the plan. Remedial programs
                            The "Usual Approach"                             thought to implement elements of the plan are also ini-
                                                                             tiated after plan adoption.
              Since the turn of the century many communities nation-
              wide, and certainly across Michigan, have been moti-
              vated to undertake substantive planning efforts. Plan-
              ning authority in Michigan was first given to municipal        Common Problems Associated
              governments in 1931. Act 285, P.A. 1931 allowed cities         with the "Usual Approach"
              andvillages to create "master plans" for their jurisdic-
              tions. In 1945, Acts 281 and 282 were signed into law
              granting regions and counties planning authority (these
              replaced planning statutes passed in the 1930's). Act          This "usual approach", as experienced by Leelanau County
              281, the Regional Planning Act, called for the creation of     and many other Michigan communities, has some seri-
              "master plans" while Act 282, the County Planning Act,         ous problems associated with it. Among the more no-
              suggested creation of "development plans". Finally, in         table problems are the following:
              1959, Act 168 was passed permitting townships to create
              "basic plans". Except for townships operating under            1. Lack of Internal Consistency
              P.A. 168, the current legislation does not require local
              government agencies to prepare plans, however many             Many of the comprehensive plans based on the "usual
              have chosen to undertake planning programs in order to         approach" lack internal consistency. Individual chap-
              provide the legal foundation for zoning regulations, or        ters may be found to promote conflicting policies, caus-
              to qualify for various state or federal grant programs.        ing confusion and frustration when attempting to imple-
                                                                             ment the plan.

                                                                             2. Inadequate Administration
              Except for townships operating under PA
              168, the current legislation does not require                  Regulatory programs adopted to implement the plan
              local government agencies to prepare plans,                    tend to be administered inadequatelyand inconsistently.
              however many have chosen to undertake                          Turnover in appointed personnel and elected officials
              planning programs in order to provide the                      commonly leads to a different outlook regarding inter-
                                                                             pretation of regulatory controls. Lack of education also
              legal foundation for zoning regulations, or to                 plays a role in faulty regulatory interpretations. In the
              qualify for various state or federal grant                     end, these administration flaws generally result in an
              programs.                                                      untrusting citizenry.

                                                                             3. Lack of Intcrjurisdictional Coordination
              Coupled with the availability of federal funds for plan-       A general lack of interjurisdictional coordination is a
              ningin the 1960'sand 70's, Michigan's planning enabling        major problem with the "usual approach" to planning.
              legislation led to development of a method referred to         This lack of cooperationwill often result in local govern-
              here as the "usual approach" to planning in Michigan.          mental units assuming adversarial roles, competing with
              Thisso-called "usual approach" involves preparation of         one another on issues of importance. As a consequence,
              a traditional, comprehensive plan. After adoption of the       duplication of services and unwise financial decisions        .10
              plan, regulatory programs such as zoning, subdivision          may be made.
              controls, etc. are created and/or revised to reflect the


                                                                         6

                                                             L"anau County Planning Deparorwnt
                                                                113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 540
                                                                  Letand, Ml 4OS54-0546
                                                                   Ph. (618) 258-9812











                  4. Lack of a "Big Picture" View                                  7. Lack of Widespread Support for a Common
                                                                                            Vision and the Fortitude Required
                  Many local governments see the world as ending at their                   for Implementation.
                  jurisdictional borders, a practice that suppresses a "big
                  picture" view of growth. As promoted by the "usual               Many of the "usual approach" plans lack widespread
                  approach" to planning, communities are inclined to               support for a shared vision of thefuture, leavingcommu-
                  develop in piecemeal or fragmented fashion as opposed            nity leaders to "fend for themselves" in controversial
                  to promoting unified development within a region.                situations. 77his is because most such plans were pre-
                                                                                   pared by a small group of people who left the planning
                                                                                   commission once the plan was adopted. Where citizen
                  5. Lack of Maintenance of Plan and Regulations after             opinions have been gathered, officials may be reluctant
                           Adoption                                                to implement a shared vision fearing legal action, voter
                                                                                   retaliation, etc.
                  Following adoption of the comprehensive plan, the "usual
                  approach" typically fizzles into a relaxed approach to
                  planning. Since the plan is thought to be finished, work
                  on the plan ceases. Local officials are lulled into a false
                  senseof securitybased on the notion of a "finished" plan.        Many of the "usual approach" plans lack
                  Adirect outcomeof this thinking is an outdated plan and          widespread support for a shared vision of the
                  obsolete implementation tools. Citizen support for the           future, leaving community leaders to 'lend
                  plan and its policies erodes quickly. Eventually, as com-        for themselves" in controversial situations.
                  munity tolerance wears thin, the planning process is
                  thought to be stagnant. "Me plan and many of its policies
                  may be discarded as an exercise in futility. Citizens are
                  left wondering what land use controls are in place and
                  feel helpless in attempting to influence new develop-
                  ment.                                                                           Other Types of Plans

                                                                                   In its nine (9) months of deliberation, members of the
                  As promoted by the "usual approach" to                           CAC were exposed to educational presentations de-
                  planning communities are inclined to develop                     scribing alternative approaches to planning. 'Me tradi-
                  in piecemeal or fragmented fashion as                            tional or "usual approach" to planning, illustrated in the
                  opposed to promoting unified development                         previous section, was discussed. Newer, more effective
                  within a region.                                                 approaches were also explored, including the following:


                                                                                   The Policies Plan
                  6. Disproportionate influence of New Jobs and Tax Base           The policies plan is the end product of a process of
                           on Future Decisions                                     selecting from alternative courses of action to arrive at a
                  Potential new jobs and increased municipal tax base              choice consistent with a set of defined goals and objec-
                                                                                   tives. Policies plans differ from traditional comprehen-
                  often bear disproportionate influence on future deci-            sive or master plans in that they are often "mapless".
                  sions. Local officials will often vote in favor of the
                  immediate, short term benefit of a proposed develop-             Policy development is an essential element of the proc-
                  ment without studying long term impacts on their com-            ess of deciding which course of action to follow. It
                  munities. Such decisions should be made in light of long-        involves analyzing the potential impact of alternative
                  term planning considerations -- but rarely are.                  policies and obtaining input from a broad range of public
                                                                                   officials, community groups and citizens. Because the
                                                                                   selection of one policy over another is often controver-

                                                                               7

                                                                  Laelanau CountV Planning Deparermt
                                                                     113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 54a
                                                                       Lelancl, M1 49654-05Q
                                                                         Ph. (616) 256-0812











              sial, it is extremely important that during the develop-
              ment phase an attempt is made to secure a broad-based          The Strategic Plan
              consensus for the preferred policy.
                                                                             Strategic planning is a disciplined effort to produce
                                                                             fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide
              The policies plan is the end product of a                      what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it.
              process of selecting from alternative courses                  S .trategic planning is designed to help leaders and deci-
              of action to arrive at a choice consistent with                sion makers to think and act strategically. Ile best
                                                                             examples of strategic planning - as is true of any good
              a set of defined goals and objectives. Policies                planning - demonstrate effective, focused information
              plais differ from traditional comprehensive                    gathering; extensive communication among and partici-
              or master plans in that they are often                         pation by key decision makers and opinion leaders; the
              is mapless".                                                   accommodation of divergent interests and values; the
                                                                             development and analysis of alternatives; an emphasis
                                                                             on future implications of present decisions and actions;
                                                                             focused, reasonably analytic, and orderly decision mak-
                                                                                                                     3
              The resulting policy statements in this type of plan           ing; and successful implementation.
              describe the general philosophy that motivated a par-
              ticular course of action or that guided or will guide deci-
              sion making."
              The Growth Management Plan                                     Strategic planning is a disciplined effort to
                                                                             produce fundamental decisions and actions
              Growth management refers to the systematic attempt by          that shape and guide what an organization is,
              a community to guide the type, rate, location, timing and      what it does, and why it does it.
              often the quality and character of land (re)development
              for the purpose of achieving carefully considered public
              objectives.
              A growth management program is undertaken by the               Strategic plans tend to be more short-term than long-
              integration of various land use planning and develop-          term. Like the policy plan, they are generally action
              ment controls with the provision of capital improve-           oriented. Strategic planning is widely used by local
              ments and other public services. Various public incen-         governments in associationwith economic development
              tive, taxation and investment tools are also commonly          programs.
              used. Communities engaged in growth management try
              to guide and coordinate growth, rather than merely react
              to it. Effective growth management programs are typi-          The Composite Plan
              cally comprehensive in scope (similar to comprehensive
              planning), but are also highly targeted in their implem-       Some counties in Michigan operate with composite plans.
              entation (like strategic planning). 2                          This type of plan is characterized by the gathering of all
                                                                             local plans into a single document. Essentially, the plan
                                                                             "borrows" all municipal plans for its main substance.
              Growth management refers to the systematic                     'Mis approach allows better opportunity for overall
                                                                             coordination, but rarely produces recommendations which
              attempt by a communitl to guide the type,                      synthesize the numerous individual plans into a unified,
              rate., location, timing and often the quality and              county-wide "vision of the future". This is because the
              character of land (re)development for the                      sum of the individual community plans rarely add up to
              purpose of achieving carefully considered                      a workable whole. Border conflicts are common,
              public objectives.                                             interjurisdictional coordination of major road and util-
                                                                             ity networks is rare, and timing considerations are ig-


                                                                         8

                                                             Loolanau County Planning Department
                                                                113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                  Leland, MI 40IR-A-0501
                                                                    Ph. (618) 256-0812










                nored. The "big picture" county-wide view is nearly                     Current Comprehensive/Master Plan
                always absent in composite plans.                                                      Effective Dates
                Some counties in Michigan operate with                                Adoption Date            Governmental Unit
                composite plans.              This type of plan is                           1975              Leelanau County
                characterized by the gathering of all local                                  1976              Elmwood Township
                plans into a single document. Essentially, the                               1979              Centerville Township
                                                                                             1980              Leland Township
                plan "borrows" all municipal plans for its                                   1985              Cleveland Township
                main substance.                                                                                Bingham Township
                                                                                             1988              Glen Arbor Township
                                                                                                               Village of Northport
                                                                                                               Village of Suttons Bay
                                                                                             1990              Leclanau Township
                                      The Situation                                                            Village of Empire
                                 in Leelanau County                                               SOURCE: County Planning Department Files

                Leelanau County's approach to managing its growth has
                been consistent with the "usual approach". Ten (10) of             Certainly if one questions the dated nature of the plans
                the County's fourteen (14) municipalities as well as               presented above, regulations adopted to implement the
                county government itself have developed traditional                plan must also be taken to task. Unfortunately, Michi-
                comprehensive and master plans. Many of the problems               gan laws relating to zoning were adopted prior to the
                identified in the preceding section are apparent in these          laws relating to planning. As a consequence, most com-
                plans.                                                             munities developed zoning ordinances before consider-
                                                                                   ing any type of plan. Leelanau County is no exception to
                It is important to note that it is generally accepted in the       this claim as is evidenced by the adoption dates of "cur-
                planning profession that a plan should be thoroughly               rent" zoning ordinances.
                reviewed and updated at least once each five years. As a
                result, one may question how satisfactorily each of the            Even amongjurisdictions with recently adopted plans, it
                Leelanau plans address contemporary issues. With the               is arguable whether or not zoning decisions are consis-
                exception of those plans adopted since 1988, none of the           tent with a corresponding plan. Local government is
                plans have received wholesale evaluation by their re-              frequently criticized for making decisions based on "who's
                spective units of government in the past five (5) years.           asking" rather than the merits of the request. Further,
                                                                                   since the legislative body is not required by state law to
                                                                                   approve a plan, it may not even be aware of plan provi-
                                                                                   sions or, in a few cases, even aware that such a plan exists.
                It is important to note that it is                generally        When evaluating a local plan's ability to adequately
                accepted in the planning profession that a                         manage future growth, recent history must be investi-
                plan should be thoroughly reviewed and                             gated. During tho past several years development-re-
                updated at least once each five years. As a                        lated controversies have flared in virtually all areas of
                result, one may question how satisfactorily                        Leelanau County. Government officials and an increas-
                each of the Leelanau plans address                                 ing number of year-round and seasonal residents believe
                contemporary issues.                                               these controversies are due, in part, to the lack of a
                                                                                   current overall "plan" or system for the management of
                                                                                   growth that is occurring.



                                                                               9

                                                                  Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                      113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                        Leland, Ml 49654-0546
                                                                         Ph. (616) 256-9812






                                                                                                                                                                                                  0






                 One major component of a successful planning program
                 has been consistently missing from plans adopted in                                                             Leelanau County
                 Leelanau County. A "shared, common vision" of how                                                Zoning Ordinance Effective Dates
                 the County should develop has not been established. As
                 is true of most "usual approach" plans, community plan-
                 ning efforts in Leelanau County have assumed an inter-                                      Adoption DatE_                   Governmental Unit
                 nal effort by the responsible governing agency. Generally
                 speaking, this approach meant less risk, less chance for                                            6/12/62                  Empire Township
                 criticism and opposition from administrators or elected                                             5/25/69                  Elmwood Township
                 officials. Planning efforts did not include major public                                            6/20/69                  Leelanau County
                 participation components and thus failed to achieve this                                            51 lf73                  Leelanau Township
                 shared vision.                                                                                      10/15173                 Cleveland Township
                                                                                                                     7/1/74                   Village of Suttons Bay
                                                                                                                     10/22f75                 Glen Arbor Township
                 One rn;@or component of a successkil plarving                                                       10/13(76                 Centerville Township
                                                                                                                     11/7177                  Kasson Township
                 program has been consistently missing from                                                          2/ 8/78                  Bingham Township
                 plans adopted in Leelanau County. A "shared,                                                        1/14/80                  Leland Township
                 common vision" of how the County should                                                             8/18/83                  Solon Township
                 develop has not been established. As is true                                                        11/15/85                 Village of Empire
                 of most "usual approach" plans, community                                                           1131/88                  Village of Northport
                 planning efforts in Leelanau County have                                                                  SOURCE: County Planning Department Files
                 assumed an internal effort by the responsible                                                    NOTE: In order to address some contemporary issues, most of the
                 governing agency.                                                                            above ordinances have been amended since thier original adoption dates.



















                                                                                                   10

                                                                                  Leelanau County Planning Department
                                                                                       113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                                         Leland, Ml 49654-0546
                                                                                            Ph. (616) 256-9812










                                                                          Chapter Four
                                                                   THE ROLE OF
                                                        COUNTY GOVERNMENT
                                                           IN FUTURE PLANNING


                   There is general agreement among Countyresidents and               of growth management. The municipalities must be
                   local government officials that villages, townships, and           confident in the technical ability of the County staff and
                   the county should prepare coordinated development                  must be willing participants in the overall planning
                                           4
                   plans and regulations. Regional and state government               effort.
                   are thought to be "too distant" from the grass roots to be
                   effective growth management agencies. Still, the ques-
                   tion of what role county government should play in the             Due to the complexities of a functional, state-
                   planning effort remains.                                           of-the-art planning program, it will be
                   Among those appointed to the CAC, there is general                 necessary for county government to serve
                   agreement that county government should play a central             in the position of both planrw and regulator
                   role in planning for the future. As a proponent of sound           (where local governments can't or are
                   planning, County government acting as a coordinator of             unwilling to take on the task).
                   planning efforts should help facilitate a cooperative
                   effort among the other fifteen (15) municipalities. With
                   available staff, county government should assume the
                   role of analyst and technical advisor on growth-related
                   issues, again promoting coordination among govern-
                   mental units. Where necessary, county government
                   should also act as the initiator of necessary plans and                     Characteristics of the Final Plan
                   development regulations. County government should
                   also act as the central data base for information related          There is unanimous consensus among CAC participants
                   to the planning process, including Geographic Informa-             that the plan must not be characteristic of the traditional
                   tion System (GIS) data, technical resource data, and               or "usual approach" to comprehensive planning. To"do
                   general information.                                               nothing" in the way of planning has also been eliminated
                                                                                      as an alternative. It is the consensus of the CAC that the
                                                                                      plan prepared as a result of Phase I should combine the
                                                                                      characteristics of a strategic plan, policies plan and growth
                   As a proponent of sound planning, County                           management plan.
                   government acting as a coordinator of
                   planning efforts should help facilitate a
                   cooperative effort among the other fifteen                         Scope of the New Plan
                   (15) municipalities.
                                                                                      'Me new Leelanau County plan must be both geographi-
                                                                                      cally and functionally comprehensive. That is to say the
                                                                                      plan must not only consider the entire physical County,
                   Due to the complexities of a functional, state-o    If-the-art     but must also contemplate the roles of all participants or
                   planning program, it will be necessary for countygovern-           stakeholders in the development of the County - both
                   ment to serve in the position of both planner and regu-            public and private. Along those same lines, the plan
                   lator (where local governments can't or are unwilling to           must be "interjurisdictional" in scope. All local units of
                   take on the task). Assistance in these areas must be               government must be active participants if the plan is to
                   available to the local municipalities to assure continuity         succeed.

                                                                                  11

                                                                     Leelanau C44j" Planning Deparlrnem
                                                                         113 GM-4 Ave., P.O. Box W
                                                                           Lelancl, M1 49654-0546
                                                                            Ph. (816) 2WO812











                                                                               efforts in those areas. Other ongoing projects including
                                                                               the Traverse City Area Land Use and Transportation
              There is urwiffxxz cormnsus arnong CAC                           Study (TC-TALUS) and the various watershed / water
                                                                               quality studies should be coordinated with this planning
              participants that the plan must not be                           project.
              characteristic of the traditional or "usual
              approach" to comprehensive planning.                             Delineation of growth and avoidance areas will be an
                                                                               important consideration of the Plan, as will agricultural
                                                                               preservation, shorelands protection, and affordable
                                                                               housing. Definition of growth boundaries/service limits
                                                                               and a goals, objectives, and policies component will aid
              Public Participation in the Plannina Process                     in managing the county's growth. A future land use map
                                                                               and corridor component will also be included in the plan.
              Broad public participation is key to achievement of a
              meaningful county-wide growth management policy. By
              discovering and building on the community's shared vi-           Legislative Efforts
              sion. of the county's future, the final plan will not be
              restricted to the form of a written plan. County citizens        While preparation of the growth management program
              will internalize many of the concepts of the plan as their       outlined above would represent a significant change and
              thoughts and ideas will be the base upon which the plan          major improvement over traditional stand alone ap-
              is built. As primary developer and user of the plan, the         proaches, it is unlikely Leelanau County will be able to
              public itself accepts ownership of the document. Once            achieve all that is needed without new legislation.- As a
              successful in these areas, local officials will realize the      result, a concuffent effort must be pursued to support
              public's support for the plan and will respond with a            the passage of new legislation.       In particular, the
              strong commitment to implementation.                             Intergovernmental Growth Management Consortium
                                                                               has identified the need for new legislation in the follow-
                                                                               ing areas:
              Broad public participation                 is key to
              acNevemerTt of a meaningful                county-wide                *  Transfer of Development Rights
                                                                                    *  Purchase of Development Rights
              growth management policy. By discovering                              *  Urban and General Service Districts
              cind building on the community's shared vision                        *  Concurrency of Services and Facilities with
              of tie county's future, the final plan will not be                       Development
              restricted to the form of a written plan.                             *  Official Maps
                                                                                    *  Regional Impact Coordination
                                                                                    *  Development Agreements
                                                                                    *  Changes in the Special Assessment Definition
                                                                                       of "Special Benefit"
              Components of the Plan                                                *  Impact Fees

              Several components have been identified for inclusion            ... aconcurrent effort must be pursued to
              in the plan. Environmental protection, economic devel-           support the passage of new legislation.
              opment, solid waste management, transportation, pub-
              lic facilities, a capital improvements program and parks
              and recreation all demand direct attention in the final
              product. It is recognized that the DNR-approved 1989             Role of Townshir) and Village Government
              Leelanau County Solid Waste Manazement Plan is al-
              readyin placeand, forall practical purposes, will serve as       In considering future development alternatives, Leela-
              the solid waste management component of the plan. The            nau County is found to have many options and choices
              existence of the Solid Waste Management Board and                before it. Unlike many urbanized communities, local
              Economic Development Commission should accelerate

                                                                          12

                                                              Leetanm Cour*y Panning Depworowd
                                                                 113 GrwW Ave., P.O. Box 5"
                                                                    LeWnd, MI 4985440546
                                                                     Ph. (616) 256-M12












                  officials are not in the position of having to "undo" a           Before "fudng" existing county growth management
                  great deal of development that has already occurred or            policies, local governments have to acknowledge the
                  live with extensive marginally-planned growth. Yet this           shortcomings of the status quo and reach a consensus on
                  scenario, as repeated in many sections of the State, will         a proper course of action. For this to happen, presenta-
                  become reality if direct action is not taken.                     tions similar to those made to the CAC will have to be
                                                                                    -made to combined sessions of local planning and legislative
                                                                                    bodies. Evidence indicating the economic feasibility and
                  Unlike many utmtwd col                                 local      desirability of a joint county/township/village planning
                  officials are riot in the position of having to                   effort should be emphasized. Examples of this include:
                  66 undo" a great deal of development that
                  has already occurred or live with                                           Resource sharing
                  extensive marginal"lanned growth.                                           Data base sharing
                                                                                              Non-duplication of effort
                                                                                              Reduced overall cost to participants
                                                                                              Unified development ordinances county-wide
                  The importance of Township and Village government
                  involvement in the planning process can not be over-              Preceding any presentation, localofficials should be sent
                  stated. To assure the success of the proposed plan in             bydirect mail a copyof the final recommendations of the
                  Leelanau County, all units of government must work                CAC. This will encourage officials to become familiar
                  toward a "common vision" of the future. Local officials           with the program before they are asked to make a com-
                  must become more involved in the process now in order             mitment. Initial contact and presentations 'could be
                   o assure overall continuity.                                     made to the Leelanau County Chapter of the Michigan
                                                                                    Townships Association, again offering officials the
                                                                                    opportunity to become familiar with the suggestions of
                  The importance of Township and Village                            the CAC.
                  government involvement in the planning
                  process can not be overstated. To assure the                      Before "fixing" existing county growth
                  success of the proposed plan in Leelanau                          management policim local governments have
                  County, all units of government must work                         to acknowledge the shortcomings of the
                  toward a "common vision" of the future.                           status quo and reach a consensus on a
                                                                                    proper course of action.


                  Options for Involving Municipal Officials                         The County must also insure that all infrastructure and
                                                                                    services provided at the County level be unified in achieve-
                  Gaining the involvement of municipal officials in the             ment of a county-wide growth management program.
                  planning program is, at best, a difficult task. Electedand
                  appointed officials alike are seen as very busy individuals
                  not only in addressing their official duties, but with full
                  time jobs and families as well. Yet, the involvement of           Role of County Government
                  local officials is a critical component to the eventual
                  success of the plan. Therefore, whatever means are exer-          In order for the local municipalities to take this planning
                  cised to involve local officials must be well organized, to       project seriously, the County Board of Commissioners
                  the point and meaningful at the moment of presentation.           will have to continue in its leadership role. The current
                                                                                    County Board is recognized as having committed more


                                                                               13

                                                                   Le"m County PWnft DqmVn@M
                                                                      113 Gmnd Ave., P.O. Box 50
                                                                        Lalwid, M1 49854,05"
                                                                          Ph. (816) 256-W12











               resources to planning than its predecessors, but much            individuals. Furthermore, the charter of the CAC calls
               work lies ahead. The county commitment will reassur@             for the group's disbanding upon adoption of this docu-
               local municipalities of the stability of the project, thus       ment.
               enhancing chances of their participation - both physi-
               cally and financially.                                           The above points not withstanding, it is the recommen-
                                                                                dation of the CAC that its membership provide the base
               In order for the local municipalities to take this               for a new group, the Leelanau Quality Growth Alliance
               planning project seriously, the County Eloard                    (LQGA), whose members are any interested citizens or
                                                                                officials. The LQGA could be used as an avenue to
               of CommmsKinars vAll have to continue ul its                     educate the public on various planning issues and pro-
               leadership role.                                                 posals. It would provide an excellent communication
                                                                                link between all local officials and citizens. A trust-
                                                                                building processwould be facilitated between all govern-
                                                                                ment agencies and citizens alike. Input on growth-
                                                                                related regulations could be promoted and coordinated
               Reciional Participation                                          through the LQGA. In all, the theory of "everyone has
                                                                                something to offer" would be put into practice through
               The relationship of the plan to local governments within         the LQGA_
               the boundaries of Leelanau County has been widely dis-
               cussed. The plan's relationship to neighboring counties,
               townships and Traverse City, however, is equally impor-
               tant. Leelanau County's effort must be coordinated as
               much as is practical with out-of-county officials. Not           The LGGA could be used as an avenue to
               only do many elements transcend township and village             educate the public on various planning
               boundaries, they also overcome county boundaries. In             issues and proposals. It would provide an
               this way, the plan will take into consideration the "big         excellent communication link between all
               picture" view of recommended actions and reactions to            local officials and citizens. A trust-building
               Leelanau pol .icies.                                             process would be facilitated between all
                                                                                government agencies and citizens alike.
               Leelanau County's effort must be                                 Input on growdwelated regulations could
               coordinated as much as is practical with                         be promoted and coordinated through the
               out-of-county officials.                                         LOGA- In all, the theory of "everyone has
                                                                                something to offer" would be put into
                                                                                practice through the LQGk



               Initiating the Suggested Planning Process
                                                                                Parallel Processes
               'Me only logical groups poised to initiate the growth
               management program described herein are the Citizen              While the LQGA is continuing the process of broad
               Advisory Committee and/or the County Planning Com-               public education regarding growth issues and serving as
               mission. Due to the already heavy workload of the plan-          an avenue of citizen participation in the growth manage-
               ning commission and with the advantage of continuity in          ment process, other information not currently available
               allowing the advisory committee to continue its work,            should be collected. Technical studies and Geographic
               the CAC is actually in a better position to spearhead the        Information System (GIS) work (sods inventory, resource
               project. In the interest of broad participation, and             inventory, etc.) can be ongoing. State-of-the-art planning
               despite it's existing size, it is recognized that the CAC        alternatives should be explored as well.
               membership is not an exhaustive assembly of interested

                                                                           14

                                                               Leelanau County Planning Departinent
                                                                  11301m Ave.,P.0.8=540
                                                                    Lek". MI 49654-0546
                                                                      Ph. (616) 258-012






       46







                  In that it is a pressing issue, work should immediately
                  begin on a community facilities and services analysis for       While the LQGA is continuing the process of
                  Leelanau County. While this type of process will cer-           broad public education regarding growth
                  tainly be a part of the base studies undertaken to provide      issues and serving as an avenue of cifizen
                  the needed factual base for the growth management               participation in the growth management
                  plan, timing is critical as major capital committments are
                  currently under active consideration. Tax dollars are           process, other information not currently
                  being collected annually in 1990 and 1991 for structural        available should be collected. Technical
                  construction and maintenance purposes by county gov-            studies and Geographic Information System
                  ernment. 71iis process has currently been placed in a           (GIS) work (soils inventory, resource irwentory,
                  ,'moratorium status" pending completion of a compre-
                  hensive county facility strategy by the county planning         etc.) can be orxjohg. State-of-the-art planning
                  department. The overall analysis should include a feasi-        alternatives should be explored as well.
                  bility study of the location of the county seat.









































                                                                             15

                                                                 Leelanau Ccxinty Planning DepwUnant
                                                                    113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                                      Leland, M1 49MA-0501
                                                                        Ph. (616) 256-9812










                                                                   Chapter Five

                                                             CONCLUSION


             Throughout the State and certainly in Leelanau County,
             local units of government are beginning to recognize the                       Conclusions of the CAC
             difficulty of "planning alone". The work alone is very
             tedious. 'Me price of marginal planning practices has             Based on the various public participation events held
             risen significantly in recent years as evidenced by court         throughout Leelanau County since January 1, 1990, the
             rulings against local governments. There is much to be            Citizen Advisory Committee has drawn the following
             gained by combining similar public programs, not the              general conclusions regarding growth in Leelanau County.
             least of which includes resource sharing and non-dupli-
             cation of effort.
                                                                               1. Most Leelanau County citizens from all walks of life,
             Over 1,500,000 local tax dollars were spent on attempts           publicand private, feel that Leelanau County is changing
             to managegrowth in Leelanau Countyduring the decade               as a result of growth.
             of the 1980's. 'Me end result is sixteen (16) individual          2. AJ though growth related changes are widespread geo-
             planning and development control efforts in the State's           graphically and uneven in impact, definable areas in the
             second smallest county. The principal result has been an          county are under perceptibly greater development pres-
             acceleration in fragmented development which is strain-           sure, i.e. a) unique natural features/water frontage, view
             ing the County's quality of life.                                 amenity areas, etc. b) arterial transportation corridors c)
             It is the conclusion of the CAC that the fragmented               areas proximate to Traverse City.
             planning and development effort has not worked and                3. Many problems are perceived to be associated with
             must be overhauled for the sake of present and future             this new growth and the problem areas can be identified
             generations. A unified effort reflecting on the County as
             a geographic area - not solely as a unit of government -          both geographically and functionally.
             must be initiated. The effort must be broad-based and
             internalized by the citizenry. A shared vision of the
             future must be the basis of growth policies. Only then            Most Leelanau County citizens from all walks
             will the planning process achieve maximum public sup-             of life, public and private, feel that Leelanau
             port and benefit.                                                 County is changing as a result of growth.

             Over 1,500,000 local tax dollars were spent
             on attempts to manage growth in LBelanau                          4. The causes of many of the perceived problems are
             County during the decade of the 19W's. The                        identifiable. Some of the problems are susceptible to
             end result is sbdeen (16) individual planning                     local initiatives directed at the underlying causes. Other
             and development control efforts in the Sbde's                     problems have causes beyond the borders of the County
             second smallest county. The prk-icipall result                    of Le.elanau and thus, only the local manifestations of
             has been an acceleration in fragmented                            the problem, Le.: symptoms, can be dealt with locally.
             development which is straining the COUry"                         5. Many county citizens and property owners are highly
             quality of life.                                                  concerned about the problems they perceive to be asso-
                                                                               ciated with changes in the county as a result of growth.

                                                                               6.  Opportunity exists for sound, carefully designed
                                                                               growth management initiatives by local government in


                                                                          16

                                                              Lsokvwmj County Manning Depwonent
                                                                 113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 5a
                                                                    L*WW, MI 4awwoua
                                                                    Ph. (816) 256-W12









                  Leelanau County. Care and caution must be exercised in           designed to protect and preserve the natu.ral beauty of
                  such initiatives, as by most indicators local government         the area are needed.
                  (County, Townships, Villages) performance to date is
                  riot impressive. 'Me credibility of local governments as         Solid Waste Management
                  growth managers is an issue. Diverse viewpoints, power-
                  ful market forces and a history of functionally/legally          Decreasing landfill space and contamination of ground-
                  fragmented efforts mitigate against the creation and             water will require more careful use of potentially haz-
                  sustained implementation of independent growth man-              ardous materials, better solid waste disposal methods,
                  agement approaches and in favor of an integrated, coher-         and stricter controls.
                  ent approach.
                                                                                   Water and Waste Water

                  Care and caution must be exercised in such                       There is an abundance of generally very high quality
                  initiatives, as by most indicators local                         surface water in Leelanau County., Surface water is very
                  government (Courity, Townships, Villages)                        susceptible to contamination from many sources. An
                                                                                   organized approach to waste water, surface water, and
                  performance to date is riot impressive. The                      ground water management is necessary if high water
                  credibility of local governments as growth                       quality is to be maintained.
                  managers is an issue.                                            Community Facilities and Services

                                                                                   There is an increasing need for more health services,
                  7. In all probability the only factor which can guarantee        housing, community transportation, and better/larger
                  the long term success of a growth management policy is           community facilities.
                  a well informed and highly activist citizenry which de-
                  mands nothing less of its local officials.                       Intergovernmental Relations

                  In addition, the Citizen Advisory Committee evaluated            IrK:reased communication between kxal, state and federal
                  several functional areas of planning and has drawn the           governments is, of course, important. However, increased
                  following conclusions:                                           communication efforts between local governments of
                                                                                   Leelanau County is imperative to a unified planning
                  Economic Base                                                    program.

                  Everyonewants good jobs and a largetax base but noone
                  wants to pay for growth or reduce the county's quality of        In all probability the only factor which can
                  life.                                                            guarantee the long term success of a growth
                  Transportation                                                   management policy is a well informed and
                                                                                   highly activist citizenry which demands
                  Vehicular and non-vehicular traffic  'on county roads and        nothing less of its local officials.
                  state trunklines has placed great demand on the county's
                  transportation system. Development of an organized
                  road system effering several alternative routes and funds
                  dedicated to solving problems associated with increased          Recreation
                  traffic are necessary.
                                                                                   Substantial increases in recreational tourism will be-
                  Natural Resources                                                come a serious problem if not addressed by local govern- Am
                                                                                   ment. Resorts and other "private" recreation facilities
                  There is pressure from many sources to make personal             should not be allowed to overtake public recreational
                  use of the natural resources of the county. Controls             alternatives.

                                                                             17

                                                                 Uwlanau county Planning DopwUrwit
                                                                     113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 54a
                                                                       Lelancl, Ml 49654-0546
                                                                        Ph. (016) 25&M12





                  Housing Trends

                  Increased demand for housing and the impact of growth
                  on housing threatens the County's quality of life. Gen-                             Current land use planning and regulation
                  erally, there is little control/direction in the area of resi-                      efforts do not adequately manage the growth
                  dential development. Steps need to be taken to assure                               problem the courty is experiencing.
                  the County has a mix of housing to suit the needs of the
                  citizens.


                  Land Use Planning / Regulation

                  Current land use planning and regulation efforts do not
                  adequately manage the growth problems the county is
                  experiencing.






































                                                                                                
                                                                              
                                                        18                                             
                                           Leelanau County Planning Department
                                               113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
                                                 Leland, MI  49654-0546
                                                   Ph. (616) 256-9612 









                                                       Chapter Six

                                     ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS


              1. Forward Working Paper Number 4to all elected and appointed planning officials in Leelanau
              County.

              Announce the availability of Working Paper Number 4 in the Leelanau Enterprise and Tribune
              encouraging public dissemination of the final recommendations of the CAC.


              2. Begin work on a unified physical County comprehensive land use plan based on the
              characteristics of a policies plan, strategic plan and growth management plan.

              Work toward establishing a common vision of Leelanau County's future.

              Encourage active township/village planning commission, township board and village council
              participation in the project.


              3. Promote growth management in the County in terms of the County as a geographic unit,
              not simply as a governmental unit.

              Identify municipal governments as "members" of a larger county-wide "community".

              Establish a partnership between the municipalities and the County government promoting coop-
              erative growth management strategies.


              4. Invite, erxxxmage and promote participation of county, township and village officials in the
              county-wide growth management planning process.

              Present information similar to that offered to the CAC explaining the differences between
              traditional planning and the process proposed by the CAC.

                     Prepare a common presentation for all municipalities.

                     All meetings will be joint sessions of the appointed planning commission and elected board/council.

                     CAC members will be invited to present- portions of information provided to the officials.






                                                             19

                                                   Loolanau County Planning DepwUnant
                                                      113 Granci Avg.. P.O. Box 546
                                                       LOW4 144 49654-MM
                                                        Ph. (a1G) 2WN12






                                                                                                                -0 1






           Present municipal officials with. evidence indicating the economic feasibility and desirability of a
           common growth management plan for the entire County.

                   Present advantages of a cooperative effort in terms of resource sharing, creation of a common data bank, etc.

                   Present advantages of using County staff for technical assistance, consensus building, meeting facilitation,
                   etc., defining the abilities of County staff in some detail.

                   Review the cost of planning in the'80's with local municipalities, emphasizing the CAC's findings of benefit
                   relative to working together versus attempting to "plan alone".

           Establish a strong communication link between the county, township and village governments.

           Revisit Working Papers 1 through 4 with municipal officials, specifically noting the public opinion
           regarding a unified approach to planning.



           5. Suggest townships and villages who are creating or updating their individual master/
           comprehensive plans work with the county planning department to mesh such plans with
           the county-wide growth management planning project as it progresses.

           Encourage local government to take advantage of the development of the geographic county plan.

           Duplication of effort is avoided, especially where data collection is concerned.

           Unnecessary expenditure of tax dollars is avoided.



           6. Immediately establish the Leelanau Quality Growth Alliance (LQGA).

           Open membership to all who wish to participate on a regular basis.

           Specifically invite all government officials in the County to participate.

           Specifically invite the participation of all known interest groups, promoting their participation in
           the - lanning process.
               .P

                   Recognize the importance of interest groups to the planning process.

                   Work to change the dynamics of "interest groups versus government" to "we're all in this together".




                                                            20

                                                  Laelanau County Manning Depafbr*M
                                                     113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box W
                                                       Leland Ml 49a544W
                                                        Ph. (ilIS) 255-9812







         W






               Hold issue forums, through the LQGA, dedicated to single growth-related issues (i.e. subdivision
               controls, etc.)

                      Facilitate an informed general membership which recommends appropriate courses of action.

                      Choose topics of interest to municipal governments, topics that can provide a catalyst for future LQGA
                      sessions.


                      invite "expert" presentations on each topic covered.



               7. Through the annual budget processes, encourage county, township and village officials to
               publicly commit additional resources to the program, and seek where possible and relevant,
               outside funding assistance.

               Review with the Boards/Councils their adopted goals and objectives for Fiscal Year 1991.

               Demonstrate this project's compliance with the stated goals and objectives of the governing bodies.

               Invite the Boards/Council to participate in any/all programs presented to other local officials,
               encouraging an exchange of ideas among officials.

               Consider the feasibility of local government financial contributions to sustain the county-wide
               community planning effort, thus reducing the impact of fragmented planning and land use controls.

               Revisit Working Papers 1 through 4 with the Boards/Councils, specifically noting the public opinion
               regarding a unified approach to planning.

               Where possible and relevant, seek outside funding assistance from both public and private sources
               for the growth management planning program.



               8. Aggressively support the efforts of the Intergovernmental Growth Management Consortium
               in its efforts to pass new legislation to allow use of many growth managementtools not presently
               available to Michigan communities.

               Establish Leelanau County as a member of the Consortium.

               Encourage municipal governments of Leelanau County to participate in the Consortium's efforts.



                                                               21

                                                      Leei,anau Counly Planning Deparbnent
                                                        113 Gram Ave., P.O. Box 548
                                                          Lekb-A, Ml 49654-05"
                                                           Ph. (616) 258-9612












          9. Begin work that can be undertaken simultaneously with the work of the LQGA

          Consider the scope of data needed to make intelligent growth management decisions.

          Consider contract(s) with outside consultant(s) for completion of various technical studies neces-
          sary to a proper plan.



          10. Explore other structural concepts in governing growth management programs such as
          regional planning, county government reorgantzation, metropolitan council, etc.

          Continue general public education efforts.

          Continue to prepare news releases telling of progress on the growth management plan.

          Prepare informational brochures for public dissemination.

          Provide "informational advertisements" in local newspapers.


























                                                      22

                                              Laetanau County Manning Departrnoont
                                                113 Grand Ave., P.O. Soot 5M
                                                 LOWW. MI 496544W
                                                  Ph talon IM-0912


FOOTNOTES

1 
	Marylin Spigel Schultz and Vivian Loeb Kasen, Encyclopedia of Community Planning
and Envoronmental Management, Facts on File Publication, 1984 page 305

2
	Intergovernmental Growth Management Consortlum, Existing Growth Management
Techniques and Proposed Legislation for Michigan, May, 1990, pg. 1-1

3
	John M. Bryson and Robert C. Einsweiler, Strategic Planning: Threats and 
Opportunities for Planners, APA Planners Press, 1988 page 1

4
	a. Leelanau County Growth Management Forums: Growth Management Plan Working
Paper # 1 (March 28, 1990), compiled and prepared by the Losianau County Planning 
Department, statee on pages 27 and 28:

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

Most comments in this area centered on local government's perceived inability to deal 
with growth issues. In adequate 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 the local government's lack of 
understanding of how development occurs [at the forum where the general public was the 
target audience].

Other local government issues included duplication of effort, uncertainty of roles, and
state statute limitations."

b. A Survey of Residents Concerning Issues Relating to Long - Range Planning in 
Lealanau County: Growth Management Plan Working Paper # 2 (May, 1990), prepared
by Anderson, Niebuhr and Associates, Inc., states on page 20:

"Over two-thirds of the residents surveyed fell that coordinated planning efforts are very 
important (69%)..."

c. A Survey of Local Officials Concerning Issues Relating to Long - Range Planning in 
Lealanau County: Growth Management Plan Working Paper # 3 (June, 1990), prepared
by Anderson, Niebur and Associates, Inc., states on page 2:

"The actions local officials feel are most important for Leslanau County to take are"
coordinating planning efforts between the County, Township and Village governments..."


										23
							  Leslanau County Planning Department
					                  113 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 546
						              Leland, MI, 49654-0548
						                Ph. (818) 258-9812




  I  -                                                                                                       NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                             3 6668 14111900 0
                                                                                                                                                               0










                                                                                                                                                                  0