Checklist Filled with Inaccurate Statements
Advertising by opponents of Timber Shores is incredibly rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
For example, a check list ad paid for by Friends of the Third Coast doesn’t pay much attention to facts.
It claims a yes vote would protect hundreds of wetlands and preserve clean water, and that a NO vote would allow developers to encroach on wetlands. Let’s look at the facts:
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Ecology (EGLE) has already issued a wetlands permit for Timber Shores. EGLE is known for its unbiased approach to environmental protection and serves to benefit us all in Michigan.
Wetlands impacts are minimal. In fact, there will be a net gain of wetlands on the property. Developers plan to restore wetlands previously filled in the 1960s when the original Timber Shores was developed.
The wetland mitigation plan includes planting hundreds of native wetlands plants and placing 15.9 acres of land in a conservation easement with the State of Michigan.
It claims a yes vote would reduce overcrowding, smoke, noise and traffic. How?
It claims a yes vote would preserve natural shorelines and wetland habitats. Really? The existing ordinance has plenty of protection for both wetlands and shorelines. Just listen to the township zoning administrator and the project consultant if you don’t believe us.
These quotes come from an October 28, 2021 planning commission meeting where the zoning administrator said:
“Your ordinance itself is pretty good as it is. It gives you a lot of latitude as a planning commission to look at special uses and set conditions and standards and evaluate something like buffering and setbacks. You have quite a bit of latitude.”
Want to hear that yourself? Click here.
The planning consultant, who cost the township at least $13,000, also told members of the planning commission that:
“Your ordinance actually, at least for the shoreline, under existing item A – where it says ordinary high-water mark – that even specifies that the planning commission may increase this required setback where it deems necessary during a site plan review proceeding. So that’s already written out in your ordinance.”
Click here to listen.
The ad claims a yes vote conserves whitefish spawning grounds and a no vote threatens them. Pure speculation. And truth be told the best whitefish spawning is down near Peshawbestown.
The next point is laughable. According to the “Friends” this ordinance amendment would invite responsible recreation for all while the present ordinance would “give commercial-resort developers free reign.” There are plenty of criteria that the developer has to meet (this is not optional) in the present ordinance for it to be considered anything but giving a developer free reign. Added restrictions in the amended ordinance forbids locals who are not registered campers from participating in any recreational activities at the campground.
As you go down the list, the checklist of claims becomes even more ridiculous. The amended ordinance would “have no effect on residential zoning.” Could that be because it is for Commercial Resort properties? This is obviously an emotional argument because we’re talking here about two Commercial Resort ordinances.
The last point on the checklist adds to the ridiculousness. “A yes vote would endorse locally-created Commercial Resort zoning.” That’s what the existing ordinance was – locally created. Let’s also mention that the only community members who got planning commission attention were those opposing the resort. Supporters’ views were never even considered.
Learn more by checking out our other blog posts.
Myth Busting: Traffic on M-22 Exists Today
No Facts to Support the Sham Amendment
Myths and Facts About the Leelanau Amended Township Commercial Resort Ordinance
Smoke and Mirrors: Misinformation, Disinformation and Fabrication Against Timber Shores
Opponents Environmental Assumptions: All Wrong
Township Summary Sugarcoats Dangerous Ordinance Implications