Commissioners at the Grosse Ile Township Planning Commission continued work on the township’s draft master plan implementation actions, focusing substantial discussion on housing-related objectives and how action items should be worded and prioritized.

The commission reopened the implementation-action list prepared for public review and examined several near-term items tied to housing choice, zoning flexibility and the R1E overlay. Commissioners debated whether the plan should use directive language ("require"/"ensure") or softer phrasing ("consider"/"evaluate") and whether some broad items (for example, "allow smaller homes on smaller lots") should be retained, consolidated or moved under other action items such as creating a mixed-residential or PUD option.

Staff explained the implementation process and funding: the township has approximately $35,000 in grant funds available to support future zoning updates, will issue an RFP/RFQ for outside consultants for more complex ordinance work, and expects to prioritize Macomb Street zoning updates immediately after plan adoption. Planner Brian said routine or smaller ordinance edits can be handled in-house as capacity permits; larger rewrites will require an outside consultant. Brian and Ross (community development staff) said they will work together to bridge any learning curve for future consultants.

Much of the meeting centered on objective H1 (housing choice) and associated action items (including items 2, 3, 8, and 10 in the implementation list). Commissioners suggested changing objective H1’s wording to remove explicit age-group language and replace it with a formulation that focuses on current and future residents—"maintain and/or expand housing choices to make Grosse Ile Township a desirable place to live for current and future residents." They debated item phrasing about fees, "financial barriers," and comparative analysis of permitting procedures. The group agreed to substitute language about identifying "best practices" or "best management practices" rather than assuming financial barriers.

Commissioners also discussed whether item 3 ("consider revising zoning to allow smaller homes on smaller lots") should be retained as a standalone action or folded under item 8 (a review of the R1E overlay) and item 10 (consider creating a mixed-residential district or PUD option). Several commissioners said that achieving smaller lots/homes would require evaluating R1E or using PUDs or rezoning in specific locations, and that any changes should be targeted rather than island-wide given limited developable land.

Given the volume of action items (42 entries with planning-commission responsibilities) and divergent commissioner views, the commission agreed on a practical process: staff will send a condensed Word document (objectives + action items only) with tracked changes enabled. Commissioners were asked to submit written edits by Jan. 20; an executive subcommittee (Commissioners Eric, Jay and the chair) will meet with staff and Brian on Jan. 29 to reconcile edits and prepare a revised draft for the full commission. The commission set a follow-up timeline to workshop consolidated edits and then return the final recommendations to the township board (expected in Q1). Public commenter Kyle Debuset expressed support for the commission’s outreach and encouraged public engagement.