Town of Holland holds off on zoning change after Board of Appeals reverses interpretation; residents urge rejection of ‘hospitality services’ in R‑1

The Town of Holland Board of Supervisors met on Dec. 9, 2024, and by consensus declined to adopt a proposed amendment to Holland Town Code Chapter 330 (zoning) that residents warned would allow "hospitality services" in R‑1 single‑family zones. The decision followed a recent Board of Appeals ruling that reversed the Town Plan Commission’s adoption of the Town Attorney’s interpretation that the use at N2047 Pine Beach Road South complied with §330‑27 (R‑1).

Why it matters: The question centers on whether a dwelling owned by American Orthodontics would be allowed to operate as a transient or hospitality use under the town's R‑1 rules. Residents and appealants argue the use is inconsistent with the long‑term single‑family character of R‑1 neighborhoods and that adopting language to allow hospitality services would undercut the appeals board’s decision.

Several residents addressed the board during public comment, urging it to respect the appeals ruling and not adopt the zoning language change. Susan LaBudde said the board should “heed the determination of the Board of Appeals” and that any action to adopt the ordinance would be “inconsistent with the Board of Appeals, undermine the legal process, and damage citizens’ faith in impartiality.” Dan Madson said the proposed amendment “doesn’t pass the smell test” and asked the board to reject it. Larry Britton, in a written submission, asked the board not to file a writ of certiorari to overturn the appeals decision and to table any ordinance amendments pending the outcome of anticipated litigation.

Other public commenters raised factual and enforcement concerns tied to short‑term or transient occupancy. Julie Kuether’s written comment criticized the town’s residential inspector for failing to identify plan details she said were indicative of nonresidential layouts. Dana Mueller described observed vehicle volumes at AO properties and said stays were typically one or two nights. The submitted public statements are attached to the minutes.

Chair David Huenink summarized the Board of Appeals results and noted the appeals transcript and minutes are not yet available (court reporter transcript typically takes 10–14 days). He also reiterated that, per meeting discussion, the Plan Commission had recommended against adopting the proposed ordinance as drafted. The board’s decision at the Dec. 9 meeting was limited to declining to act on the proposed amendment that night; no formal repeal or new ordinance language was adopted.

Board members recorded their positions procedurally during the meeting: the Plan Commission’s recommendation against adopting the draft zoning change was accepted and the board approved related procedural items such as land divisions elsewhere on the agenda. The appeals board reversal remains the most recent formal determination on the interpretation at issue; the legal record is expected to proceed through the transcript and any further filings.

Next steps: The Board of Appeals transcript and the appeals minutes will be posted when available; the board left the proposed zoning amendment unacted upon and did not adopt replacement language. Residents urged the board to avoid filing to overturn the appeals decision and to let the legal process proceed.

The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.