Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Map Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge clearer materials before March 5 zoning hearing
Summary
Two residents told the Ferrysburg City Council the public lacks clear, side‑by‑side information about proposed zoning‑map and ordinance changes and asked the city to provide one‑page summaries before the planning commission hearing on March 5 so comments can be informed and meaningful.
Nicole Larabell, a Ferrysburg resident, told the council the March 5 planning commission public hearing will consider a large package of zoning‑map and ordinance changes and that the volume and placement of materials makes meaningful public comment difficult. “One public hearing for this many proposed changes provides the public one opportunity for public comment,” Larabell said, asking the city to publish easy‑to‑read summaries that compare current district standards with the proposed new standards.
A nut‑graf: Larabell detailed major items in the draft, including renaming residential districts and raising lot coverage in the Inland Lake Overlay District from 35% to a proposed 60%, and she said the city posted the proposed draft only recently and that notices ran for one day in the local paper. That combination, she said, leaves residents without enough time or clear information to prepare meaningful input to the planning commission or to council.
Craig, a city staff member, confirmed the draft ordinance is in the March 5 planning‑commission packet and acknowledged that a memo to explain the changes had been discussed. David Brockmire, another resident, said he had tried to study the materials and recommended either producing a concise comparison document quickly or postponing the hearing so residents could review the changes.
Larabell called for a one‑page public document for each zoning district listing the current standard, proposed changes, renamed district, and PUD density and lot coverage comparisons so residents can know whether and how their property is affected. “We need time to review it before the hearing to make informed public comments,” she said.
The council did not take formal action on the March 5 hearing during this meeting. Council members and staff discussed the possibility of preparing explanatory materials; staff noted the draft had been posted to the city website on February 23 and that mailed notices were received by some residents nine days before the hearing.
