A proposed development in Whitewater Township would bring 22 new single-family homes to northern Michigan, at a time when housing demand is high and inventory is scarce. But township residents say the development would also tarnish the rural character of the area and violate Whitewater’s master plan. The disagreement in vision has ignited significant controversy in Whitewater in recent months, even pushing local property owners to retain legal counsel and hire the consultant who had, until a contentious meeting in March, been assisting the township’s planning commission in rewriting Whitewater’s master plan.

The controversy concerns a planned “site condo development” on Baggs Road, a street in Whitewater Township that bisects M-72. Site condo developments look and act like any other type of residential subdivision, and site condos themselves are just single-family homes. The distinction is that site condos are subject to a different law – the Michigan Condominium Law – than standard platted subdivisions, and are a less stringently regulated way for developers to build housing.

At a March 2 meeting of the Whitewater Township Planning Commission, Doug Mansfield of Traverse City’s Mansfield Land Use Consultants presented the site condo plans on behalf of applicant and developer Baggs Road Partners LLC, a Grand Rapids-based entity owned by a financial planner named Derek Van Solkema. Mansfield told the commission that the development would build 22 single-family homes on approximately 30 acres off Baggs Road, with each home getting its own well and septic system.

Right from the start, the proposed project drew pushback from nearby property owners. Even at that initial March 2 meeting, multiple local residents voiced their disapproval of the development, raising concerns about everything from traffic, to excessive noise and light pollution, to drainage and stormwater runoff. The most prevailing sentiment among commenters was that a tightly-clustered housing development would clash with Whitewater’s master plan, which lists “Preserve Whitewater Township’s rural character” as a top goal.

“If you look at this [project plan], these site condos are going right on top of each other,” says Vicki Beam, one of the Whitewater residents leading the charge against the proposed development. “It’s just not keeping up with the master plan of the rural community.”

Beam tells The Ticker that she and many of her neighbors chose Whitewater Township as a place to live specifically because it had more of a rural identity than Traverse City or other nearby townships. When she and her husband bought property in the area, they secured “almost 50 acres” to give themselves privacy and freedom from light and noise pollution.

“We trusted that no matter where we were in Whitewater Township, the township was going to maintain that rural character,” Beam says. “I know [development density] is a fight that's going on – and is going to continue – in northern Michigan, because we have such pressure for development. But I think the bottom line is that our master plan says one thing right now, but that's not what [the local government] is holding to.”

That’s not to say the Baggs Road development is a done deal. At the moment, the matter is still awaiting planning commission approval. At a meeting of the full township board on April 12, meanwhile, trustees discussed imposing a temporary moratorium “on all site plan and special use permit reviews,” which would impact Baggs Road and most other new development in the township. In a memo sent to the board ahead of the meeting, Township Supervisor Ron Popp noted that several recent development proposals had “given rise to residents voicing their concerns over the lack of density regulations provided by our existing zoning ordinance.”

“Additional public concerns highlight missing elements required by the State of Michigan of both the zoning ordinance and master plan,” Popp’s memo continued. “As development pressures increase within the township, the missing portions of the documents are very important. The township has been advised to implement a brief moratorium to allow time to make corrective actions…”

That advice came in December from Township Zoning Administrator Robert Hall and Township Attorney Chris Patterson. In a memo to the board, Hall noted that Article 25 of Whitewater’s zoning ordinance – which concerns “Site Plan Review and Special Land Uses” – currently lacks “several components that are required by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA).”

At the April 12 meeting, after hearing more than an hour of public comment concerning the Baggs Road development, Popp made a motion to institute a 60-day moratorium. He was ultimately voted down by Board Treasurer Della Benak and Township Clerk Cheryl Goss, the latter of whom argued that a moratorium would be “grossly unfair to people who have projects planned in this community.”

With or without a moratorium, though, Popp says it’s a priority to resolve any issues that exist in Whitewater’s master plan and zoning ordinance.

“The master plan is where we want to go, and the zoning ordinance is the vehicle we use to get to our destination,” Popp explains to The Ticker. “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. Some person's definition of rural character might be to have one house per 40 acres, while another person's definition might be one house every five acres. So, I think part of the struggle is defining or putting limits on rural character, as far as a density goes.”

“Up until this year, Whitewater Township has really been unattractive for developers,” Popp adds. “But as available land for development shrinks, development activity moves further away from the core of Traverse City. And so, this question of density – which really hasn't been tested or put before our planning commission – this is the first time we're having an opportunity to see where the holes are.”

One issue is that Whitewater’s master plan is outdated, having last been revised in 2015. Popp also notes that the planning commission and township board never followed through “to get a zoning ordinance in place that supported the master plan.”

As a result, the township lacks any enforceable definitions of the master plan’s rural character goal. The planning commission is currently working to update the master plan, which could theoretically give the township new opportunities to reinforce its priorities through zoning. But that process hit a major snag in March when Dr. Christopher Grobbel, the consultant hired to guide the city through the development of a new master plan, quit in the middle of a meeting after planning commissioners made racially charged comments.

Beam and a group of other local property owners, who have now formed an LLC called “Keep Whitewater Rural,” are in the process of retaining Grobbel for consultation services. They’ve also hired a lawyer – Matthew Vermetten of Pezzetti, Vermetten & Popovits, PC – to explore potential next steps.

Grobbel declined to comment for this story, noting that he has a “verbal” commitment with Keep Whitewater Rural but hasn’t formally been hired yet. Vermetten, meanwhile, said his firm is still in the midst of a “deep dive” on the issue and is “not far enough along to provide a statement relating to status or strategy.”