Grosse Ile trustees delay master plan adoption, ask board members to submit amendment list

GROSSE ILE, Mich. — The Grosse Ile Township Board on July 28 declined to adopt the planning commission’s draft master plan and instead agreed to compile a list of specific amendment requests to send back to the planning commission for response before a scheduled vote on Aug. 11.

Trustee Mark, speaking during the board’s discussion, said the planning commission “has put a lot of work into it” but warned the plan would guide decisions for decades. He said the board could ask for changes but that those changes would require public hearings if implemented.

The board’s decision followed public comment from residents, including Kyle Debolce of West River Road, who told trustees he supported delaying a final vote and suggested a minor amendment could follow an adoption. Patrick Smith Bower and Deborah Stevens also urged trustees to allow more public input on areas they said needed clearer treatment.

Why it matters: The master plan sets long-range land-use guidance for zoning, redevelopment and public investments. Trustees repeatedly referenced Macomb Street and housing language in the plan as points needing attention; the board voted to collect a formal list of requested revisions and present that list as a single action item at the Aug. 11 meeting.

Board discussion and process: Trustees and staff described the planning commission’s two-plus-year effort to produce the draft and emphasized that zoning ordinance changes would follow any adoption. Ross, the township’s community development director, told trustees the planning commission’s role is advisory and that zoning changes proposed by the commission would still require the board’s approval, amendment or rejection when they come forward.

Several trustees said they respect the planning commission’s work but want the record to show specific areas to revisit. Trustee Kevin, speaking to process and transparency, said he had voted not to put the plan on the agenda for a final vote that night because the item had not been noticed as an action in the published agenda and he wanted more time for board members and residents to review details.

Next steps: The board agreed to a timetable: board members should send suggested amendments to the supervisor by Aug. 3 so staff can compile a formal action item for the Aug. 11 meeting. The motion that will appear on the Aug. 11 agenda is expected to be either adoption or rejection with a listed set of amendments. Trustees were advised that if the board rejects the plan with amendments, the amendments must be specified in the motion and will be returned to planning commission for response.

Public comment and context: Residents who had participated in surveys, focus groups and prior hearings attended and urged trustees to balance respect for the planning commission’s effort with attention to public concerns. Several residents said they wanted typos and historical inaccuracies corrected quickly and asked that the board provide an avenue for neighbors to submit input on the amendment list.

Board members noted the potential for grant or funding impacts if adoption were delayed, but several trustees said the additional review was prudent to reduce later disputes.

The board will review the compiled amendment list and vote on the master plan at the Aug. 11 meeting; the supervisor asked trustees to deliver suggested edits in writing by Aug. 3 so staff could prepare the action item and supporting materials.