Buildable Or Not? Controversial Housing Development In Whitewater Township Hits New Snag

Drama around a housing development proposed in Whitewater Township continues to unfold nearly a year after the project first came before local officials. As proposed, the development would bring 22 single-family homes to a 30-acre parcel at the corner of Baggs and Lossie roads in Whitewater Township. A group of local residents has pushed back against that project from the start, saying that its density is at odds with both the township’s rural character and its master plan. Now those same residents are alleging the 30-acre parcel is in direct violation of the township’s zoning ordinance – and that it is legally unbuildable as a result.

The Ticker reported last April on the status of the Baggs Road development and the debate it had ignited. At the time, the argument mainly orbited around the township’s master plan, which explicitly identifies “Preserve Whitewater Township’s rural character” as a primary goal, but which is not legally enforceable on its own.

The conversation has drawn attention to Whitewater’s zoning ordinance, which Township Supervisor Ron Popp admitted last year was “missing elements required by the State of Michigan,” including specific density regulations. Speaking to The Ticker in April 2022, Popp acknowledged the planning commission and township board had never followed through “to get a zoning ordinance in place that supported the master plan” after said master plan was last revised in 2015. As a result, the zoning ordinance didn’t have definitions or limits to meaningfully enforce the commitment to rural character cited.

“The master plan is where we want to go, and the zoning ordinance is the vehicle we use to get to our destination,” Popp explained to The Ticker last spring. “Right now, there is a discrepancy between the master plan and the vehicle that gets us there. The zoning ordinance appears to have a different density figure than most people believe would support a ‘rural character’ definition.”

Discussion about that discrepancy – combined with the fact that Whitewater Township was in the midst of a master plan rewrite at the time (and still is) – ultimately led the township board to place a temporary moratorium on all site plan reviews, special use permits, planned unit developments, plat approvals, and other development applications. But that moratorium expired on January 1, and the Baggs Road development has been back on the agenda at several township meetings since. Several of those meetings have stretched on for 3-5 hours, thanks in large part to intense and lengthy public comment and board discussion.

Recent conversations about Baggs Road have centered on a formal complaint filed with the township by Frank and Connie Hymore, who own property that abuts the property in question. The Hymores allege the 30-acre parcel earmarked for development is actually the result of an illegal subdivision of land, and is therefore unbuildable.

Previously, the parcel in question was the property of Morrison Orchards, which owned a 122.91-acre piece of land at the corner of Baggs and Lossee. On May 5, 2020, that parcel was subdivided (with township approval) into two separate parcels. The first, “Parcel A,” is a 92.9-acre property and is not at issue in the current township debate. The second, “Parcel B,” measures 30.01 acres and is the proposed site for the new 22-home development. (After subdividing the land, Morrison Orchards sold the subdivided parcel to a new owner, who in turn proposed the development.) The problem, the Hymores claim, is that township zoning “requires a minimum width to maximum depth ratio of 1-to-4,” while the 30-acre parcel has an actual ratio of 1-to-6.

According to New Designs for Growth, a planning and development guidebook published by Networks Northwest in 2008, width-to-depth ratios are a tool that local jurisdictions often use to “promote better utilization of land while maintaining the rural character.” Per the book, implementing these types of ratios to regulate the subdivision of land “can reduce sprawling, fragmented land development that often results from the division of large parcels of land.”

“Lot width-to-depth ratio regulates lot depth in relation to road or lake frontage,” reads a section from New Designs for Growth. “A minimum lot width-to-depth ratio prevents the creation of long and narrow lots, as well as the crowding of buildings along access roads while leaving the land behind buildings vacant and unserviceable. Except in critical areas (e.g., parcels with steep slopes, shorelines with a high risk of erosion, sensitive natural ecosystems) lots should not exceed a 1-to-4 ratio.”

Meanwhile, Whitewater Township General Ordinance No. 26 – which pertains specifically to land division – reiterates the width-to-depth ratio requirement and also states that any new parcel “created in noncompliance with this ordinance shall not be eligible for any building permits, or zoning approval, such as special land use approval or site plan approval, and shall not be recognized as a separate parcel on the assessment roll.”

Thus, the Hymores argue, Whitewater’s own zoning renders Parcel B unbuildable and makes it illegal for the township board to approve the Baggs Road development. “To allow this property to be built on, you, the board, will have to decide to break the laws of your zoning ordinance,” said Connie Hymore at a meeting of the Whitewater Township board earlier this week.

In the wake of the Hymores’ complaint, Whitewater commissioners have reckoned not only with questions of how to proceed with the proposed development, but also with questions of just how far their authority extends. Those discussions dominated a January 12 special meeting which stretched on for five and a half hours. At that meeting, the board ultimately voted to seek “better guidance” from the Whitewater Township attorney on next steps, asking legal counsel about the board’s authority to reverse or uphold the land subdivision decision (which was approved by Whitewater Township Zoning Administrator Robert Hall), how a reversal of that decision would impact subsequent sales of the subdivided parcels, and what similar Michigan court cases have played out relating to deeming parcels unbuildable due to zoning violations.

The township board convened for another special meeting this past Tuesday (February 21) to “Review Legal Opinion Regarding Hymore Complaint.” But those conversations took place in closed session. After more than an hour behind closed doors, board members returned and quickly approved a motion “to proceed as discussed in closed session with additional research of state law and the local ordinance.”

Meanwhile, a group of property owners called “Keep Whitewater Rural” is working to turn up the heat on the board. “Our group has been in touch with the state, and land division issues are very serious,” says Vicki Beam, one of the organizers of the opposition. “The township has a real mess on their hands and they are trying to sweep it under the rug.”