Kent County committee reviews siting process for materials facilities, outlines role of Dorr Township SBP

Kari Bliss, chair of the Kent County Materials Management Planning Committee, opened discussion April 16 as Fishbeck consultant Vimala Anishetty presented the draft Siting Process section of the county Materials Management Plan (MMP).

Anishetty told the committee the Siting Process lays out three ways a new or expanded materials-management facility could be authorized: (1) uses already identified for existing county-owned facilities that are included in the MMP, (2) facilities authorized through local zoning or Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals, and (3) proposals that go through the Siting Process procedure when they fall outside inventory or existing approvals. She emphasized the draft is intended to comply with Michigan Part 115 requirements and to anticipate future technologies and needs.

The consultants and staff used the Sustainable Business Park (SBP) in Dorr Township as a central example. They said the SBP’s proposed uses were approved recently by the Dorr Township Planning Commission and will be considered next by the township Board of Trustees; if the township board affirms those uses, the SBP is expected to be designated as a Class A industrial park with infrastructure standards such as paved roads and sewer access.

Dar Baas (Director) said the county will cross-reference Allegan County’s MMP after directional approval and that a mechanism exists for the Materials Management Planning Committee to provide input on an anchor tenant at the SBP. Committee members and consultants noted that automatic approvals under Part 115 are narrowly applicable and typically depend on whether a facility is already listed and in compliance with the county inventory.

Committee members asked for clarifying edits to plan language. Vimala Anishetty said staff would review language in section 4.2.7 that currently reads “included in MMP,” because not all local ordinances can or should be fully documented in the county plan. Matt Kalman recommended county legal counsel review the draft to ensure it aligns with Part 115 and relevant local ordinances; staff said a legal opinion is unlikely to be ready by next month.

The committee discussed how the Siting Process could function when communities resist specific technologies. Anishetty used an anaerobic digester as an illustration: even where a county-level need exists, local odor concerns can make siting politically difficult; the Siting Process provides a procedural pathway but does not guarantee local acceptance. Tim White asked why a private operation, Recycling Concepts, was not listed in the current inventory; staff replied facilities should be included in the plan only if an anticipated Part 115 need exists.

The committee did not adopt any formal policy changes at the meeting; staff said the SBP 2.0 concept and any future building proposals will be brought back to the relevant boards for decision prior to construction. The committee directed staff to refine plan language and stated intent to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions where appropriate.