Planned Developments in Small Resort Towns Explained

***- -

On August 18, the Planning Commission approved a significant change to the existing rules for Planned Developments, with little discussion at that meeting. The new draft removes objective limits, such as height and acreage. You should understand its impact.

Read the details below. We have included an email link at the end so you can email City Hall with your concerns. Via button shown here and repeated below.

Send Email to City

### Our Core Philosophy on Zoning At the heart of this debate is something simple but profound: Property rights are a fundamental individual right. They can only be modified by the state, or by our neighbors under limited, clearly justified circumstances. Harbor Springs already has a zoning code that has served the community for decades. If someone wants to change it, they must make their case openly, with facts, and allow the public and Planning Commission to weigh the merits.

That means the starting point is always the original zoning code**. Not an outside consultant’s template. Not the rejected Ordinance #439. The code we have today serves as the foundation, and every proposed change should be argued and debated on its own merits.

There are only a few legitimate reasons to change zoning:

- **Neighborhood-specific conflicts** – Several property owners agree the current code creates a problem unique to their district.

- **Compliance with new law** – The state or federal government requires us to update.

- **Excessive exceptions** – Too many variances and ZBA cases reveal a recurring flaw in the code.

- **Broad community benefit** – Elected officials, after hearing residents, identify a change that serves everyone.

In each case, the process should be consistent: A citizen or group introduces the problem, provides the logic, invites public comment, and the Planning Commission acts as judge and jury. The Commission’s role is not to act as an advocate or policymaker, but to weigh the evidence and make a decision. Michigan law recognizes this separation of duties: Zoning ordinances are legislative acts adopted by elected councils, while Planning Commissions serve in an advisory and quasi-judicial role.

**That process did not happen with Planned Developments**. At the last Planning Commission meeting, it became apparent that the draft language removed the minimum acreage, resulting in a significant change from the objective standards in the 2005 zoning. No one has explained what was wrong with the old PD provisions. No citizen petitioned for change. Instead, entirely new development options were introduced two hours into an already-late-night meeting. That violates the basic principle of how zoning should evolve: Through transparency, argument, consensus, and common sense.

As we move forward, this article will take a closer look at a Planned Development. How Planned Developments have been used elsewhere, why the proposed changes represent a radical shift for Harbor Springs, and why we are paying such close attention to the PD changes introduced in the Proposed Code. Our city fathers would do no less.

## Updated: Proposed Changes to Planned Developments While there are more details in the old and the Proposed Zoning Code, linked at the bottom of this article, the differences between the existing and proposed, as we understand them are:

- **2005 Current Code: **A Planned Development requires more than 10 acres (0.5 acres in the Central Business District), no more than 1 home per acre outside the CBD, and must conform the the zones’ building heights, setbacks, and other key objective requirements. It included several subjective requirements to minimize density and required four out of eight objectives.

- **Proposed Code: **There do not appear to be any objective limitations. It must comply with five of the seven general subjective rules regarding land usage. PD’s are excluded from the Mobile Home, Community and Industrial districts, but allowed everywhere else, including the Waterfront District.

The 2005 zoning regulations for Planned Developments were fact-based and objective. Little opinion. The proposed change is subjective. Influenced by the individuals who happen to be on the Planning Commission and City Council. Advice from Planning professionals suggest:

- The Proposed Code may not handle the PD as a SLU and may eliminate the ability of the PD to be appealed by the ZBA. This means fighting it once approved automatically goes to circuit court.

- In the current 2005 code, a PD as a SLU, has to meet the SLU standards and also could be appealed locally to your ZBA. Some communities make PD a “rezoning”, which may be even better because it can go to referendum. We didn’t have this before….but also may not have had the prohibition that it couldn’t be appealed to ZBA.

- In the Proposed Code, a Planned Development essentially allows any shape or size, provided 3 of the 5 City Council members approve, and 5 of 9 Planning Commissioners agree. Per the draft Proposed Code, as ridiculous as it sounds, if 3 City Council and 5 Planning Commissioners agree, you could build a 5-story Tower in place of the Pier Restaurant.

## The August 18th Planning Discussion The final changes to Planned Developments were introduced at the Planning Commission on August 18th. The reason for Planned Developments in Harbor Springs has never been discussed in any substantive way in the last few years. We have had extensive discussions on the intent and purpose of zoning in each district, but not a discussion of why it’s a good idea to give developers so much flexibility to deviate from the zoning with a Planned Development.

Given that the next Planning Commission meeting on the schedule is intended to conduct a final review before presenting to City Council, we felt a need to educate the public on Planned Developments so that you can make an informed decision. The introduction of the change and the entire discussion lasted 20 minutes.

YouTube link to the moment of the discussion. *8.18.25 PC Meeting PD Discussion (Begins at 2:06:32 - 2:26:43)

* Link to our prior newsletter. *8.26.25 Call to Action WLHS Newsletter

## Planned Developments: The Biggest Loophole Yet One of the most consequential changes in the new draft code is the expansion of Planned Developments (PDs), a zoning tool for developers to work with city staff to create a custom plan for a piece of land, apart from standard zoning rules. Each is unique and varied in dimensions. Supporters argue that they allow flexibility; critics note that they can lead to special deals and unwanted exceptions.

When the City first began discussing the update to its zoning code, one of the stated goals was to “close loopholes” that developers could exploit. The irony is that the new PD article does exactly the opposite; it creates a wide-open pathway for developers to bypass the very rules that are now in place to protect the character of Harbor Springs.

Under the current 2005 code, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) option is narrow. It applies mainly to large residential projects (10 acres or more) and is designed to preserve natural assets. As the code itself states:

***“It is the intent of this Special Use to provide a more desirable living environment by retaining the natural character of the City through the preservation of open spaces, woodlands, streams, ponds, waterfrontage, hills, and similar natural assets.”*

The idea was simple: Allow some flexibility if the project protected the very character of Harbor Springs that makes it unique.

The Proposed Code** flips that logic. The new Planned Development article invites developers to sidestep normal zoning rules — height, density, setbacks, and even land use and acreage — so long as they can argue their project provides a “community benefit.” However, what constitutes a benefit is often vague and subjective, frequently reduced to promises that are neither guaranteed nor enforceable.

While the language suggests the City “retains discretion,” in practice, the guardrails are being loosened to promote development. By opening the door to taller, denser, and more intensive projects in almost every zoning district, the City is signaling that it welcomes these opportunities. Instead of using zoning to defend community character, history, and size, the Proposed Code retools it to encourage growth.

It is Pro-Growth and has been visible in draft codes since 2023. A version was in the rejected code. It only recently became apparent that we are moving back to the #439 language, eliminated acres, etc.

This shift is no accident; it mirrors the pro-growth principles advanced by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation's (MEDC) programs that encourage cities to streamline approvals, prioritize flexibility, and “remove barriers” to development. Planned Developments are the exact vehicle for that agenda: they give developers the green light to ask for more, while the City stands ready to say yes.

**If the original goal was to close loopholes, why create the biggest one yet?**

### The Problem with Planned Developments Planned Developments are often sold as “flexibility for better design.” In reality, especially in small resort towns under 10,000 people, they act as discretionary rezoning tools. Every PD becomes its own mini-zoning district, negotiated case by case. The results are subjective, unpredictable, and often town-changing. Goals of preserving and protecting the historical scale and character of the town are undercut from the beginning by the broad new allowances.

- Weaker standards and one-off exceptions that break with the historic pattern.

- More lawsuits because neighbors and rivals challenge the deals. (The last PD in town led to many years of lawsuits with the Cottage Company).

- Public distrust (because it looks like special treatment for big players).

- The Planning Commission has pushed to reduce the number of zones in the city; a Planned Development provision increases the number of zones, often customized for a builder.

- Planned Developments are used by developers

### What PDs Typically Look Like in Resort Towns Across mountain and lakeshore towns, PDs follow a familiar script:

- While rules may say, e.g., “two acres required,” administrative staff can reduce that regulation, enlarge it, or grant density bonuses or trade-offs.

- Introduce custom rules, written parcel by parcel. Dimensions for setbacks, heights, parking, and even uses are rewritten in private agreements with developers, disrupting and changing the historic rhythm of neighborhoods. This is the definition of subjectivity.

- Open-space promises often come with loopholes. Numbers look good on paper but shrink in negotiations, and historically, over time, as ‘promises’ are renegotiated or later scrapped. Often, to avoid legal action from developers.

- Use of two-step approvals. The Planning Commission recommends, while the Council decides, making politics, not objective requirements, the driver. Whichever body leans pro-growth dictates the outcome.

It all adds up to uncertainty, exactly what Harbor Springs, with its historic legacy, has said it wants to avoid.

### When PDs Go Wrong (Recent Small-Town Examples) - Sedona, AZ (pop. 9k): Resort PD triggered lawsuits against the city and even individual officials after a controversial hotel project. Divided community.

- Whitefish, MT (pop. 8k): Multiple lawsuits over PUD approvals, impact fees, and process fights; huge legal bills, divided community.

- Breckenridge, CO (pop. 5k): A hotel/condo PUD near the ski base wound up in court with HOAs over easements and approvals. Divided community.

- Catskills, NY (hamlet): lawsuits followed discretionary PD upzonings for resorts.

The pattern is consistent: High-Value Projects + Small Town Identity + Discretionary Zoning = Lawsuits, Broken Trust, and all too often, large developments in a once-smaller, quieter town.

### Why This Matters for Harbor Springs - We have a tiny footprint and a large historical legacy. Harbor Springs is only 1.3 square miles. Adding the possibility of parcel-by-parcel PDs with commercial and residential build-outs multiplies complexity instead of simplifying and eliminating it, especially in sensitive districts like the Waterfront.

- We have a clear preservation vision already in place. Our Master Plans and strategy documents stress predictability and historic character. PDs move in the opposite direction.

- Recent history is instructive. Ordinance #439 was repealed by voters after residents felt blindsided by its scale and pace. With this late introduction in the zoning process, do we really understand its impact? This Proposed Code may be more pro-growth than #439.

In practice, PDs in resort towns typically deliver large luxury projects, rather than affordability or community benefits consistent with a historic small town.

### Practical Alternatives for Harbor Springs You don’t need PDs to reach community goals. We just spent months on each zone to meet the zoning goals. The existing code already allows:

- Special uses, clustering, overlays, conditional rezoning, and site plan review. All predictable tools.

- Overlay districts for shoreline, bluff, and viewsheds, which preserve historic character without endless negotiation.

- Targeted tweaks to setbacks, lot coverage, or uses, done openly and uniformly, not one parcel at a time.

### Recommendation For a town as small, historic, and distinctive as Harbor Springs, broad Planned Development allowances are the wrong tool. They hand too much discretion to boards, invite lawsuits, and fray public trust. Keep the existing codes, tailor Planned Development rules, or hold proper public meetings to discuss the motivation and the details. We are not opposed to development; we are opposed to changing the zoning without sufficient discussion of intent or details.

**The Better Path:** Keep your base districts, strengthen overlays, and refine existing tools. That’s how you preserve historic character, avoid litigation, and protect the Harbor Springs brand. With no explicit historic compatibility standards in place, natural assets (woods, streams, waterfront) are protected, but historic streetscapes, scale, and architecture are not.A PD could technically meet density/open space rules but still overwhelm the town with out-of-character massing.

Any change to the zoning should follow the core principles outlined above, repeated here:

- **Neighborhood-specific conflicts** – Several property owners agree that the current code creates a problem unique to their district.

- **Compliance with new law** – The state or federal government requires us to update.

- **Excessive exceptions** – Too many variances and ZBA cases reveal a recurring flaw in the code.

- **Broad community benefit** – Elected officials, after hearing residents, identify a change that serves everyone.

If someone honestly thinks we need Planned Development, they owe the community an honest presentation explaining the merits of such a large change. A PD could be approved in one sweep, locking in 20 years of growth with little future recourse.

If you want this matter discussed before the Planning Commission approves the zoning, please email us your concerns. We will gather them and present them to the Planning Commission.

Send Email to City

## References Current 2005 Zoning Code Planned Unit Development and the 2025 Proposed Zoning Planned Development Documents - for your review - are still a work in progress. There is a lot to be considered before final PD language is inserted into the new code.

Thank you to the members of the Planning Commission for your valuable time and commitment. Harbor Springs couldn’t do this without volunteers like you, nor could the community.

2025 Proposed Zoning Code Planned Development 4.46MB ∙ PDF file

Download Download

2005 Zoning Code Planned Unit Development 121KB ∙ PDF file

Download Download

### Note: The article has been edited to focus on the concern. The principal concern is that acres, height and other objective standards have been removed. In the 2005 code, it was very hard to apply a PD. In the proposed code, it is much easier and subjective. People should understand the consequences and let their opinion be known.