County planners flag questions about proposed dredging of canal to East Twin Lake

Planning Director Kiersten Stark presented an EGLE public notice for a permit application by Simon Baginski to dredge about 0.3 acre of a canal contiguous to East Twin Lake in Marion Township for recreational access. The Charlevoix County Planning Commission discussed whether the feature is a historic canal or a wetland that provides water‑quality and habitat functions, and whether the applicant’s materials meet state permitting requirements.

Commission member Marshal Bakker said the canal appears on older plat maps and noted local recollections of using the waterway; he cautioned that whether the canal is “grandfathered” depends on historic permits and law at the time. Planning Director Kiersten Stark said EGLE’s site photos indicate a functional wetland in the canal that could be helping Lake Charlevoix’s water quality. Commissioner Anna McGlashen said the application did not include a feasible‑and‑prudent alternatives analysis and observed that “recreation and riparian access are not purposes that justify dredging a wetland,” adding that, “So, under state law, it’s unlikely that EGLE would approve this permit.”

Members debated practical effects if dredging were permitted: potential need for repeated maintenance dredging, whether dredging the canal would require also dredging into East Twin Lake, impacts on emergent vegetation and fish habitat, and the value of a vegetative buffer to limit runoff. Commissioners also noted an adjacent property owner opposed the project and discussed whether deeded riparian rights or the plat designation as a canal affect the applicant’s authority to dredge.

Director Stark summarized regulatory context cited in the public notice: the applicant proposes disturbance at the 0.3‑acre threshold for mitigation (EGLE mitigation often triggers above that amount), and the agency may require mitigation or buffer conditions if it permits work. Commissioners asked EGLE to clarify whether the feature’s historic designation as a canal is documented and whether mitigation or buffer conditions would apply.

The commission voted unanimously to send written comments to EGLE for consideration. The comments will include the commission’s concerns about wetland functions, the absence of a feasible‑and‑prudent‑alternatives analysis as described in the application, potential impacts to adjacent riparian owners, and the value of vegetative buffers and mitigation. The EGLE permitting process, and whether a public hearing will be scheduled, was not specified in the meeting record.