Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County-owned land pilots and brownfield policy spark debate over role in housing development
Summary
Commissioners discussed using county-owned parcels for conceptual site designs and pilot housing projects, how that work intersects with brownfield redevelopment authority, and whether the county should 'activate' projects or act only as a local-unit resource.
At the June 17 work session, staff described a pilot approach for county-owned opportunity parcels: the county would invest modestly in high-level conceptual site designs (estimates cited as $3,000–$5,000) to reduce upfront cost and zoning risk, present concepts to local units as the applicant, and then solicit proposals from developers once initial approvals are in hand.
Paul (committee member) and other commissioners endorsed the concept as a way to 'walk alongside' developers and local units to catalyze projects that might otherwise stall on site preparation and zoning costs. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that any county role must respect local control: townships would still hold public hearings, and local elected officials retain final say on whether a proposed development suits their community.
The conversation then broadened into a detailed debate over brownfield redevelopment. Some commissioners said the plan’s current language — 'continue to activate brownfield redevelopment projects' — sounded too proactive and recommended replacing 'activate' with phrasing such as 'address' or 'be a resource as requested by local units.' Several commissioners said they would be cautious about supporting brownfield authority involvement if projects included multifamily rental housing and suggested the board set clearer guidelines so staff and local governments know what projects the board will consider.
Commissioners also noted recent, local brownfield projects (Spring Lake ribbon-cutting and projects in Holland) as examples of successful work, while others recalled past controversies and urged a case-by-case approach. Staff said the county typically acts at the request of a local jurisdiction and can be a facilitator, but that clarifying board priorities would reduce uncertain expectations for developers and communities.
What happens next: staff will revise the task language to reflect board direction (emphasize 'resource' or 'as requested by local units') and provide more detail at a future board meeting before drafting contracts for pilot site design work.
