Holland plan commission hears public concerns and recommends adoption of zoning language on conditional uses while preserving Section 2 of prior ordinance

Town Chair David Huenink opened a public hearing April 2 on proposed amendments to Chapter 330 of the Town of Holland Code, fielding more than a dozen public commenters who urged greater transparency and raised legal and procedural concerns about limiting the Board of Appeals’ (BOA) interpretive powers.

The Plan Commission ultimately voted in two recommendations to the Town Board: it recommended that the Town Board not repeal Section 2 of Ordinance 2025‑06 and not adopt Ordinance 2026‑Draft(A), and it recommended that the Town Board adopt Ordinance 2026‑Draft(C) (which would be numbered as Ordinance 2026‑02 if adopted). Both recommendations passed on unanimous roll call votes by the commission.

Why it matters: Residents and several commenters argued the draft changes could narrow which administrative decisions are appealable to the BOA and create ambiguity that invites litigation. That concern drove much of the public testimony and framed commissioners’ deliberations before they made their recommendations to the Town Board.

Public concerns: Public commenter Scott Siemon told the commission that “removing the BOA’s interpretive powers takes away transparency in the decision-making process” and said state law already allows administrative appeals. Annemarie Valenti said the proposed amendments “differ from state statutes in some cases,” questioned whether BOA members had been consulted and asked whether legal opinions obtained by the Town would be made public. Resident John DuMez warned that definitions are missing from the draft: he cited the University of Wisconsin Extension’s Zoning Board Handbook and said the draft’s ambiguity on area and use variances could lead to future litigation. Several other attendees, including Megan Holbrook and Phil Marr, urged the commission to explain what the changes mean and to post notices more prominently on the town website.

Commission discussion and motions: Chair David Huenink presented packet materials, including a January 4, 2026 letter from David Valenti, a comparison of state statute and town ordinance language, and legal opinions from three law firms. The commission allowed Town Board members to comment during deliberations. Commissioner David Mueller moved, and Commissioner Bryan Kaiser seconded, that the commission recommend the Town Board not repeal Section 2 of Ordinance 2025‑06 and not adopt Ordinance 2026‑Draft(A); the motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. That motion was followed by a separate motion, moved by Commissioner David Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Brody Stapel, to recommend adoption of Ordinance 2026‑Draft(C), adding language on conditional use permits and special exceptions; that motion also passed unanimously. Minutes note the commission’s consensus to permit Town Board members to participate during the discussion.

What the drafts address: Ordinance 2026‑Draft(C) adds language about conditional use permits and special exceptions to Chapter 330 (Zoning); the minutes record concerns that definitions and appeal language differ in places from state statute and that the absence of certain definition changes could leave terms subject to BOA interpretation. The minutes reference a comparison between state statute and the town’s ordinance and multiple legal opinions provided to the Town.

Next steps: The Plan Commission’s recommendations are advisory: the Town Board will consider the commission’s recommendations at a future meeting. The commission closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.; the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

Details: Public notice for the hearing was posted March 17, 2026 and printed March 26, 2026; the agenda was posted March 25, 2026. Several commenters asked that the Town release related law‑firm opinions and clarify whether proposed changes were intended to address specific projects or developers.