Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution on proposed zoning changes as Pine Beach appeal remains pending
Summary
At the Aug. 11 meeting, residents pressed the Holland Town Board to pause changes to Chapter 330 (zoning), citing concerns the draft would reduce recourse for homeowners and the Board of Appeals; the board deferred action while an absent supervisor remains unavailable and noted AO has 45 days to appeal the recent court ruling.
Residents and landowners urged the Holland Town Board on Aug. 11 to slow consideration of a proposed amendment to Chapter 330—saying the draft could limit ordinary citizens' ability to challenge zoning decisions and alter the role of the Board of Appeals.
"Before the board votes on the proposed changes to Chapter 330, they should pause to consider the broader implications of doing so," said Amy Scott during public comment, urging elected officials to ask whether the changes "will empower citizens" or simply satisfy "vengeance." Scott said citizens need clearer, accessible explanations of proposed ordinance language before votes are taken.
Grant Barthel told the board he feared the draft "emasculates the Board of Appeals (BOA)," asking whether litigation would become the only realistic option for residents who object to decisions. Several speakers echoed calls for clearer ordinance drafts and suggested posting redline comparisons so the public can easily see what would change.
Multiple residents pressed the board for clarity about recent litigation over N2047 Pine Beach Road South. Ann Bachrach said she had submitted a spreadsheet of visitor records and criticized perceived enforcement gaps, saying AO "is saying to all of us, tough luck people, we’re going to do exactly what we want to do." Chair David Huenink said the town will follow up on information provided by residents.
Dana Mueller read a written question asking, "Are you in discussion w/AO regarding appealing the decision? Should AO decide to appeal the decision, will the TOH again join them in the appeal? Are we taxpayers and AO splitting the legal fees for this decision?" Chair Huenink replied that AO would pay its own attorney and the Town would pay its own attorney if it hired one, and that the Town is not currently joined with AO.
Clarity on next steps: the board took no action on Ordinance 2025‑Draft(E) (Chapter 330 – Zoning) at this meeting, a deferral the chair connected to Supervisor Brody Stapel’s absence. Separately, Huenink summarized a July 17, 2025 circuit court hearing that found procedural errors in the Board of Appeals' determination but nonetheless affirmed the outcome that AO’s proposed use is not allowed in R‑1 for separate reasons; the board understands AO’s deadline to appeal as Monday, Sept. 8, 2025.
Why it matters: the proposed zoning changes and the outcome of any appeal could affect how residents challenge land‑use decisions and how the Town enforces rulings. Speakers repeatedly requested clearer drafts, more opportunity for citizen input, and transparency about legal costs and enforcement options.
The board did not set a date for reconsidering Ordinance 2025‑Draft(E) during the Aug. 11 meeting; officials said deferred items will be reconsidered when a full board is present.
