Georgetown Township's Master Plan Keeps the Northwest Corner Farmland. Its Authors Say the Pipes Will Decide.

"The utilities are what is going to drive development in the northwest quadrant." Planning Commission Chairman Josiah Samy said that at the commission's August 19 meeting, according to the meeting minutes. He was explaining why leaving that corner of Georgetown Township marked Agricultural on the future land use map "kicks the can down the road and protects the area."

He also described the other side of the deal. If a developer wants to bring water and sewer to the area, he said, "it will force the township's hand to redraw the maps."

That tension runs through the whole draft master plan, which goes to a public hearing on Wednesday, November 4. The plan uses its firmest language yet to keep the township's largest open area agricultural. The officials who wrote that language also say a five-year planning document can only hold that line so long. Pipes, roads and neighboring townships will help decide what happens after that.

What the November 4 Hearing Actually Decides

Michigan townships review their master plans every five years. Supervisor Jim Wierenga told the Township Board at its August 10 meeting that the last time Georgetown brought in a planner for the job was 2007. The reviews since then had been limited. This time the township hired the consulting firm Williams & Works for what Wierenga called a "deeper dive," and it gathered public input "to a degree that has not been done in the past."

The future land use map in the plan does not rezone anyone's property. Wierenga said the map "details the future but does not change the current zoning map." A rezoning only starts when the Board initiates one or an owner applies. The Board's edits made that explicit. One revision in its list of proposed changes says the map "is a policy guiding document, does not carry the force of law."

So the plan matters for a different reason. It is the first document a developer reads. Township Clerk Kelly Kuiper argued for exact wording on exactly that basis. "The job of a developer is to go into the Township's documents to figure out exactly what the Township wants," she said. Any gray area "will be used against the Township. It is imperative that we say what we mean."

The Sentence the Board Wrote In

The Planning Commission's draft already recognized how important farming is in the northwest quadrant. Wierenga called that wording "a little short" and proposed a direct policy statement for the Northwest Corner page:

"It is the intent of the Georgetown Township Master Plan that the northwest quadrant remain predominantly agricultural in character and use, with the preservation of productive farmland, open space, scenic viewsheds, and the long-term viability of farming operations serving as the primary land use objective, while residential, commercial, and urban-density development is directed to designated growth areas elsewhere in the Township."

The revision goes further than that sentence. It replaces a list of "future issues for sub area plan to explore" with preservation priorities. The new list discourages "the fragmentation of agricultural land through incremental residential development" and asks the township to make sure water and sewer planning "does not unintentionally encourage premature urbanization of agricultural areas." The final version also notes that an agricultural parcel is still allowed to build a single-family home.

Wierenga pointed to the township survey as the basis for the change. The two answers that drew the most responses were protecting natural areas and protecting farmland. Trustee John Schwalm connected the language to traffic. He said development in the area would strain utilities and add to the traffic that "goes down Fillmore to Cottonwood," which he called "an incredible challenge right now."

Why a Map Alone Can't Hold the Corner

The minutes from both meetings show that the people who back the farmland language also have doubts about it. Board and commission members named four pressures the plan does not control:

1. Water and sewer. Samy's point from August 19 is that whoever extends utilities can force a remap. That is why the Board's preservation list addresses utility planning by name.
2. Blendon Township across 48th Avenue. At the August 10 Board meeting, Kuiper noted that Blendon has its own master plan and wants that stretch to be its commercial corridor, which leaves the two townships with "competing goals." She said it makes sense to plan the area as agricultural for the next five years, but "we have to stay on top of what is happening in the surrounding communities." At the commission meeting, Jeannine Bolhouse said the area's rural four-way and three-way stops would back up for a mile if that corridor fills in.
3. Growth from Allendale and Grand Valley. Trustee Gary Veldink, a longtime builder and developer, said the northwest area connects to Grand Valley and Allendale and will feel growth from there. He said the township needs to push for another bridge across the river. Commissioner Geoff Brown said the county has talked about a Grand River bridge in that area, and that "an Agricultural designation does not prevent that area from changing."
4. Landowners' own plans. Veldink said some owners bought their land to fund their retirement and that "the land is worth more to develop than to be a farm." He said he "wrestles with" whether the area is prime farmland, and Kuiper agreed it is "not the most prime farmland." Wierenga answered that zoning does not promise owners the highest and best use, and that "if that land was changed to residential, that would be giving rights, not taking away rights."

Wierenga called the plan "a snapshot in time that lasts five years." Veldink said he could see the area staying preserved for that long, "especially based on the utilities." So the farmland policy is a five-year commitment, and its own supporters said as much.

Where the Plan Points Growth Instead

The northwest policy sends development to "designated growth areas elsewhere." The rest of the edits show where those areas are, and several of them correct specific parcels on the future land use map.

Rural Estate is the newest category on the map. It describes low-density housing on larger lots and assumes an overall density of one home per three to five acres. It is meant to support rural character and natural-resource preservation, and it encourages pathways for people. Samy said he favored "changing the southeast corner of the township to Rural Estate." He said the category fits there because of that area's utilities and limitations, and because the township does not move land backward to Agricultural once it has been planned for housing. Commissioners briefly asked whether Rural Estate could also apply in the northwest. They agreed to keep that area Agricultural. Tom Healy explained why: "once it changes from Agricultural, it is open to development."

The Housing Paragraph That Came Out

One deletion drew the only dissenting vote. The Board removed a sentence from the Housing section that encouraged duplexes or triplexes, accessory dwelling units, multi-family homes and assisted living. It added a narrower line in the Suburban Residential section instead. That line says multi-unit housing "will be considered in limited transitional areas" if built as a planned unit development.

According to the August 19 Planning Commission minutes, Samy said the ADU wording had been "a nod to the many responses on the Master Plan survey about affordability and mother-in-law suites," which the current township ordinance does not accommodate. The zoning administrator told commissioners that a variance for an ADU would be unlikely under the high standard for granting one. The more likely route, he said, is for the Planning Commission and Board to agree on ordinance language. Healy suggested the commission could write such an ordinance within about 18 months.

The commission accepted the Board's full package of changes 5 to 1, with Gary Veldink absent. Brown cast the no vote. He said the ADU removal was his only reason. So ADUs are not in the plan, but the topic stays open on the commission's side.

Before the Hearing

The Board approved the draft for distribution at its August 24 meeting. The township posted the draft, with links to full and low-resolution copies, in an August 25 announcement. The zoning administrator had described a 63-day public comment period. An open house followed on October 6 at the Township Office, where consultants were on hand to take feedback.

The remaining steps:

• Wednesday, November 4, 7 p.m. or after: Planning Commission public hearing at the Township Office, 1515 Baldwin Street, according to the township's hearing notice.
• Until the hearing closes: The current and proposed master plan, the future land use map, the zoning map and the zoning ordinance can be examined at the Township Office during regular hours. The office accepts written comments during regular hours before the hearing date.
• After the hearing: The commission recommends an adoption resolution to the Township Board, which has final say. If the Board and commission cannot agree, the current plan stays in effect. Wierenga noted that has never happened.

Township notices sometimes change, so check gtwp.com for the latest before you go. The August 19 and August 10 minutes show where the hard questions sit. Most of the debate was about the northwest quadrant along 48th Avenue, the Chicago Drive corridor and the housing language. Comments on those parts of the plan go straight to the questions officials are still working through.

Want to know how the future land use map lines up with a particular street, lot or block in Georgetown Township? Bialik Real Estate follows these decisions closely and is glad to go through the map with you. This post is general information and not legal advice, so please confirm zoning questions about your own property with the township or a qualified professional.