Cascade Township holds public hearing on zoning rewrite after residents urge keeping village housing

Cascade Charter Township trustees opened a public hearing June 1 on a proposed, comprehensive rewrite of the township—uilding and zoning code intended to implement the township'019 master plan and a new form-based village code.

Supervisor Lehi told the room the update was meant to preserve Cascade—harter Township—haracter amid growth pressures and to implement residents—eedback gathered during a multi‑year master‑planning process. He described the draft ordinance as having been through a planning commission review and several public work sessions before being published in a draft dated Oct. 1.

Residents and property owners filled the public comment period to oppose a current draft change that removes or severely limits residential uses in the village core. Joe Erdman, a longtime Cascade business owner who owns mixed‑use properties at 2899 Thornapple River Drive and 6886 Cascade Road, told trustees the change would be “a dramatic shift” and said, “an independent architectural review estimates that taking of this rezoning would result in over $2,000,000 in lost value and project feasibility.” He urged the board not to reduce residential zoning for his property.

“Walkability is important,” said architect and developer Ken Dixon, urging the board to preserve the ability to place housing in the village so people can walk to shops and restaurants. Several other speakers, including longtime residents Glenn Turek and Kevin Lipke, described the township s having too few housing choices for residents at different life stages and urged rules that allow smaller, lower‑maintenance homes and mixed‑use development.

Planning staff and the township—onsultant summarized the draft—hanges the planning commission recommended and explained the process that led to the current language. The planning commission raft had included a sliding scale for residential density in village districts and form‑based standards for architecture, landscaping and sidewalks. That version also proposed density bonuses tied to homeownership and deed restrictions; some of those bonuses remain in the current draft.

Trustees spent more than an hour debating two core issues raised repeatedly in public comments: (1) whether to allow residential units in the village core and, if so, how to limit density; and (2) the minimum and maximum front setbacks for new buildings along Cascade Road and Old 28th Street. Planning staff said the planning commission pproach limited large redevelopments by capping larger sites at roughly two units per acre while allowing modest multi‑unit conversions on small lots, but trustees asked staff for parcel‑by‑parcel data to test how different numeric approaches would affect specific properties in the village.

Several trustees said they were open to reintroducing residential uses in parts of the village if the board could agree on a clearer, more defensible numeric approach. Trustees asked staff to produce a short packet before the next work session showing: parcel size distributions in the village core, photos and setback measurements for representative properties (the dentist office and the Roadhouse corridor were suggested as examples), and an estimate of how many additional dwelling units different density rules would allow.

The board also discussed other draft elements raised during public comment, including accessory building heights and attic/loft limits, animal and beekeeping rules (staff was asked to clarify the beekeeping language and to treat the Michigan State volunteer registry as a policy or external resource rather than a mandatory requirement inside the ordinance), and a narrower approach to incentives and bonuses targeted to specific growth nodes such as Star and Glenwood.

No zoning ordinance was adopted. Instead trustees scheduled a follow‑up work session for June 20 at 6 p.m. and directed staff to return with the parcel and setback data and a revised draft reflecting the board irection. Staff and the board said the visual examples and numbers would be posted and circulated to help residents and property owners understand the practical effects of different numeric choices.

What happens next: staff will produce the parcel‑size analysis and representative property images and circulate revised draft language before the June 20 work session. The board emphasized that decisions about village residential allowances and setback standards would be reconsidered in public sessions before any final adoption.

Provenance: The zoning public hearing, comments and board deliberations are drawn from the township meeting transcript beginning with the Supervisor—ackground remarks (00:05:02) through the deliberations and direction to staff (00:45:36). Excerpts in this article are supported by the transcript; see provenance entries below for the first and last related segments.

Ending: Trustees did not adopt the zoning ordinance tonight; they framed the remainder of the process as iterative and asked staff to return with targeted data, draft language and visuals to narrow the remaining disputes before any final vote.