On the agenda: Georgetown meeting — Data Center (Oct 7)

Georgetown Charter Township
1515 Baldwin St., Jenison, MI 49428
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, October 7, 2026, 7:00pm

1. Call To Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval Of The Agenda
4. Approval Of Minutes Of The Previous Meeting
4.I. Minutes Of The 8/19/2026 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Documents:
PCM260819.PDF
5. Old Business
5.I. (REZ2604) (Ordinance No. 2026-08) Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Public Hearing
Held 7/15/2026)
Documents:
INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.PDF
EXPLANATIONS - INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.PDF
6. New Business
6.I. (REZ2605) (Ordinance No. 2026-09) Potential Zoning Ordinance Amendments To Be
Initiated
Documents:
NOT YET INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.PDF
EXPLANATIONS - NOT YET INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS.PDF
7. Communications, Letters And Reports
7.I. MTA Conference Handouts
Documents:
MTA CONFERENCE HANDOUTS.PDF
8. Public Comments
9. Other Business
9.I. Fence Ordinance Discussion

MTA CONFERENCE HANDOUTS.PDF
8. Public Comments
9. Other Business
9.I. Fence Ordinance Discussion
Documents:
FENCE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.PDF
10. Commissioner/Staff Comments
11. Adjournment

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held
Wednesday, August 19, 2026.
Meeting called to order by Chairman Josiah Samy at 7:00 p.m.
Present:

Josiah Samy (Chairman Samy), Jeannine Bolhouse, Jessica Ulberg, Tom Healy, Geoff
Brown, Goris Passchier
Absent:
Gary Veldink
Also present: Ryan Schab, Zoning Administrator (ZA)
#260819-01 – Agenda for the August 19, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Moved by Geoff Brown, seconded by Jessica Ulberg to approve the agenda of the August 19,
2026 meeting as presented.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#260819-02 – Minutes of the July 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Moved by Jeannine Bolhouse, seconded by Geoff Brown, to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2026
meeting as presented.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#260819-03 – Minutes of the July 15, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Moved by Tom Healy, seconded by Jessica Ulberg, to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2026
meeting as presented.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#260819-04 – Master Plan Review (Master Plan Full Draft, Township Board Proposed Changes,
Additional Changes, Rural Estate Designation, Township Board Minutes)
Geoff Brown stated he had no objection to most of the changes proposed by the Township Board.
He stated wanted to confirm the section about roundabouts states it is the Ottawa County Road
Commission planning the roundabouts, not Georgetown.
The ZA stated that will be in the final draft, yes.
Tom Healy stated regarding the Suburban Residential overview Section, the new proposed added
phrase, Multi-unit housing types will be considered in limited transitional areas if developed as
planned unit developments sounds all-inclusive to him. He stated it sounds like it has to be a PUD
of multi-unit residences rather than as part of a PUD which may include other uses.
Jeannine Bolhouse suggested they could rephrase as, developed as part of a PUD.
There was a consensus that would work better.
Geoff Brown stated one of his notes about the Suburban Residential Overview Section had to do
with the line that says, All residential development is required to be connected to a water and

August 19, 2026 - Georgetown Township Planning Commission

page 2

sewer system if available or the developer can bring utilities to the development. He stated during
the recent board meeting, Township Clerk Kelly Kuiper brought up private property rights and
how people own the rights of their property, but the township is not allowing them the right to dig
a well.
Tom Healy stated it is referring specifically to suburban residential classifications. It does not
include Agricultural properties or Rural Residential.
The ZA agreed the suburban residential classification is referring to Low Density Residential and
Low-Medium Density Residential.
Geoff Brown stated it reads like people cannot have wells.
Chairman Samy stated it is saying residential developments must connect to water and sewer. So if
a development is going in, they have to be connected to water and sewer.
Geoff Brown stated he understood that phrasing better now. He asked if a developer will pick up
that understanding or will it create confusion.
Chairman Samy stated developers will look at this [section of the Master Plan] and think the
development has to connect to water and sewer, as it is required by the ordinance. He stated if
someone wanted to install a well in addition to their required water connection, that would be
more of the permitting side of things to see if that is allowed.
Geoff Brown was concerned the phrasing is not clear enough, especially since this document will
be used in the decision-making process [for applications to develop].
Tom Healy stated now large rural parcels can be split into many more lots per the revisions to the
Land Division Act. Additionally, there is a township ordinance change [that was tabled at a recent
Township Board meeting in order to receive more information before making a decision] about
requiring a plat to be developed if a single lot is going to split into five or more lots. He stated that
was what led to a discussion about private property rights during that Board meeting. He stated a
subdivision has many restrictions, whether it is made up of five houses or fifty houses. He stated it
becomes of a question of when is it not a private property incursion.
Geoff Browns stated he thinks it was a good idea to get legal guidance on that ordinance before
moving on with it.
Chairman Samy stated, regarding the Housing Section, the Township Board had a discussion and
voted to remove the phrasing about accessory dwelling units (ADUs) being included in a list of
different housing styles. He stated including ADUs was a nod to the many responses on the Master
Plan survey about affordability and mother-in-law suites as ADUs, which do not currently fit the
township ordinance. He stated despite the fact that the Township Board voted to remove ADU
phrasing, it was his understanding that the Board is still open to having a conversation about
ADUs. He stated having attached ADUs is a passion of his personally, in order to help people that
have older family members stay with them longer or kids that cannot afford to go out on their
own. He gave an example of a client of his that has an autistic son in his mid-twenties who is highfunctioning enough that he can live on his own, but still has situations where he should be close to
family. He believed they owe it to township residents to have more discussion on this one.

August 19, 2026 - Georgetown Township Planning Commission

page 3

Tom Healy stated they are removing it for now in order to continue studying ADUs.
Chairman Samy stated that is correct. Essentially, they are removing from the Master Plan an
indication that they want to study ADUs, even though they can still study it. He stated he felt it
was fine that they were removing it from the Master Plan text, but he wanted to make sure
everyone knew it was something he was passionate about.
Jeannine Bolhouse stated she felt the same way. She stated they are not saying ADUs are
appropriate for every area and every house, but it is appropriate for the township to be openminded with regard to different opportunities that may be available in the township. She stated she
felt it was important to keep that language in there, but she was okay with removing it for now.
She stated the Board seems to feel strongly about having no reference to ADUs, and felt it was a
lack of understanding of different types of ADUs that are available [that causes the aversion to
them].
Tom Healy stated Gary Veldink’s concern was understandable about the scenario where family
moves out of the ADU and then it becomes a rental unit.
Chairman Samy stated there are protections that the township could work through. He stated that
is part of the forward-looking policy on the Master Plan, which is a guiding document, not a
policy.
Geoff Brown stated removing ADUs makes it look like the Township is fearful of them and it
ignores all the [residents] that have talked about them. He stated, respectfully, he felt members of
the Board do not understand what an ADU is, which is feasible because it is not their job on a
daily basis. He stated he thinks it absolutely needs to be addressed, and there needs to be a level of
education, not just for Planning Commission, but clearly for the Board as well because when he
was listening to their comments at the meeting, he felt it was clear some of them do not know
what an ADU is. He stated removing the language and kicking it down the road does not make the
Township look good. He stated at some point it has to be addressed. It is not just a trend that is
possibly going to happen. It is happening, and the township needs to get ahead of it.
Tom Healy asked the ZA what happens when people come to the Zoning Board of Appeals
wanting to build an ADU for their son, like in Chairman Samy’s example.
The ZA stated based on the high standards to receive a variance, it would be unlikely to be
granted. He stated a far more likely path than receiving variances, is the Planning Commission and
Township Board coming to an agreement on what is acceptable to put in the ordinance regarding
ADUs.
Tom Healy stated the Planning Commission could create an ordinance for ADUs, for example
within the next 18 months, and send it to the Board and have it implemented as an ordinance.
The ZA stated that is correct.
Geoff Brown stated he will go along with the Township Board not wanting ADUs addressed in the
Master Plan, though agreeing reluctantly. He stated it will be addressed eventually; other
townships in the area already have policies on them and their ordinances understand there is a

August 19, 2026 - Georgetown Township Planning Commission

page 4

difference between ADUs and duplexes or rentals. ADUs are for a specific purpose. He stated the
reality is the world we live in [necessitates them] with elderly parents and rest homes being
extremely expensive and kids with special needs that are functional, but need to be close to family.
There are so many reasons they need to be addressed.
Chairman Samy asked how the other commissioners liked the new classification of Rural Estates
in the southwest quadrant [on the Future Land Use Map]. He stated he liked it. He stated they had
a discussion about not going backwards in zoning, so they cannot designate a place Low Density
Residential and then decide to change it back to Agricultural because they do not regress
development, they only progress development. He stated this new designation fits that area of the
township because of the utilities in that quadrant and the limitations of that area.
Tom Healy stated the only issue he had was that the language states, private streets and cul-desacs are discouraged; he thought they were prohibited.
The ZA stated there are a few circumstances that allow for them and so the language matches the
rest of the document. PUDs and condo developments allow for it; to say they are not permitted is
inaccurate. He stated someone could not buy a Rural Residential parcel and decide to split it and
put in a private street, but there are certain circumstances where it is allowed.
Goris Passchier stated he liked the new designation. He also stated he would agree with Geoff
Brown on the ADU issue.
Geoff Brown asked if there were other areas where the Rural Estates designation would fit.
Chairman Samy stated based on the proposed language, no. But his first thought was the northwest
quadrant. He stated now it is designated as Agricultural on the Future Land Use Map, but maybe
they could go back into that area and maybe reclassify some of those parcels as Rural Estate.
Geoff Brown stated the longer they wait, the less of a foothold they have in that area. He stated
Gary Veldink brought it up at the Township Board meeting that the township needs to do
something to prevent Grand Valley State University (GVSU) from grabbing those parcels, and
then they need to consider what Blendon and Allendale are doing in that area.
Chairman Samy stated the purpose of the farmland designation might have been to combat [large
developments]. If that is the case, then they should not make any changes to that area.
Tom Healy stated once it changes from Agricultural, it is open to development.
Jeannine Bolhouse agreed. She said she is not necessarily opposed to getting more detailed and
site-specific in that area, but is generally in favor of leaving it as Agricultural.
Chairman Samy stated the Board wanted to keep that area more Agricultural to prevent
development there. He was in favor of changing the southeast corner of the township to Rural
Estate.
Geoff Brown agreed on changing the southeast corner. His concern was with the northwest
quadrant. He stated it is a vulnerable area. He stated the county has talked about a bridge going
across the Grand River in that area, though nobody has had the clout or money to push it through,

August 19, 2026 - Georgetown Township Planning Commission

page 5

but one entity that could would be GVSU. He stated if GVSU gets ahold of that property, they can
push for a bridge to go across [the river] and eliminate the Township’s control of that whole area.
He stated an Agricultural designation does not prevent that area from changing.
Chairman Samy stated Ottawa County has a farmland preservation program of some kind where a
property owner could get [compensated] by the county to maintain their farmland for life.
Geoff Brown stated he did not think that pertained to public entities like GVSU or utility
companies.
Chairman Samy stated if an entity wanted to buy up farmland property that is in the county
preservation program, the county or township get the right of first refusal. He stated he is not an
attorney, but he believed that is how it works.
Tom Healy stated there is a lot of property in Blendon right across 48th Avenue that is
undeveloped.
Geoff Brown stated Blendon wants that to be their commercial corridor right across from where
Georgetown is trying to keep it Agricultural.
Tom Healy stated there is no water or sewer there.
Chairman Samy stated they are not requiring it though.
Jeannine Bolhouse stated those rural four-way and three-way stops will be backed up a mile [if it
becomes a commercial corridor].
Chairman Samy stated in their defense, that has always been intended to be a major thoroughfare.
Geoff Brown stated he is not blaming them. He is saying the township is behind the ball here.
Chairman Samy stated keeping the Agricultural designation kicks the can down the road and
protects the area. He stated the utilities are what is going to drive development in the northwest
quadrant. If a developer wants to bring water and sewer to that area, it will force the township’s
hand to redraw the maps. At this point, [leaving it as Agricultural] is the best thing the township
can do.
Moved by Chairman Samy, seconded by Tom Healy, to accept the Township Board's
proposed changes from the 8/10/2026 Board meeting, to offer the changes included in the
document titled "Additional Changes Confirmed at the 8/19/2026 PC Meeting," and to
recommend to the Township Board to consider the revised draft of the Master Plan.
Yeas: Josiah Samy (Chairman Samy), Jeannine Bolhouse, Jessica Ulberg, Tom Healy, Goris
Passchier
Nays: Geoff Brown
Absent: Gary Veldink
MOTION CARRIED.

August 19, 2026 - Georgetown Township Planning Commission

page 6

Geoff Brown stated the only reason he opposed adopting the changes was due to the decision to
remove the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) language from the Master Plan.
#260819-05 – Communications, Letters, and Reports
The ZA stated the township attorney is looking at some of the suggested phrasing for ordinance
amendments that were made at the previous meeting. He stated he will be at the Township Board
meeting on Monday, August 24 to present the Master Plan draft to hopefully be approved for the
63-day public comment period and they will set up a date for the open house. Following that, the
Planning Commission will recommend to the Township Board the resolution to adopt the Master
Plan.
#260819-06 – Public Comments
Members of the public were present. No public comments were made.
#260819-07 – Other Business
Jeannine Bolhouse wanted to let the commissioners know the City of Hudsonville’s Master Plan
recently won the Daniel Burnham Award for a Comprehensive Plan by the Michigan Association
of Planning.
#260819-08 – Adjournment
Moved by Chairman Samy, seconded by Geoff Brown to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.

GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP
OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN
(Ordinance No. 2026-08)
At a regular meeting of the Township Board for the Charter Township of Georgetown, held at the Township
Offices on ___________, 2026, the following Ordinance was offered for adoption by Township Board
Member ________, and was seconded by Township Board Member ________, as recommended by the
Planning Commission:
(REZ2604) Ordinance No. 2026-08:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING
ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 19 AND 22.
THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Chapters 19 AND 22 of the Georgetown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance are amended
as follows.
Sec. 22.9
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
E. Any regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be approved through a
finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall result in a higher quality of
development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards.
Regulatory
modifications are not subject to variance approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this
PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
provision shall not preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following
final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations to open space areas
as shown on the approved PUD site plan.
F. A table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all deviations from the
established zoning area, height and setback regulations, off-street parking regulations, general
provisions, or Township subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses
and developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Sec. 22.5
PUD APPLICATION.
(A)
Preliminary Plan Application Requirements
Following the pre-application conference, applicants seeking approval of a PUD District shall
submit a complete application for review to the Zoning Administrator. When the Zoning
Administrator determines the application to be complete, the PUD application will be sent to the
Planning Commission for a workshop session, followed at a later date by a Planning Commission
public hearing. Such application shall include the following (unless determined by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
(1) A completed application form and ten (10) copies of a preliminary development plan shall
be provided to the Zoning Administrator. The preliminary plan shall contain the following
site plan information:
aa. A table (either on the plan or in the narrative) which specifically details all
deviations from the zoning district involved, including area,, height and setback
regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township

subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and
developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
(3) Narrative Statement: A narrative statement describing:
a. The objectives of the PUD and how it relates to the Intent of the PUD District, as
described in Section 22.1.
b. The relationship of the PUD to the qualifying conditions listed in Section 22.2.
c. Phases of development and approximate time frames for each phase, including
anticipated start and completion dates of construction.
d. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within
the PUD.
e. A table (either on the plan or in the narrative) which specifically details all
deviations from the zoning district involved, including area, height and setback
regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township
subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and
developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Sec. 22.10

STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each of the following standards:
A. The proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2.
B. The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the
capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
C. The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious to
the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
D. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as described in
Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative development for the
community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
E. The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of this Chapter, respective of being either a
preliminary or final PUD request (Preliminary PUD’s must meet Section 22.5, A and Final PUD’s
must meet Section 22.8, D.)
F. Any proposed modification or deviation from any zoning district or other zoning requirement
shall be approved only through a finding that the modification or deviation shall result in a
higher quality of development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards.
Such modifications or deviations are not subject to variance review or approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals. No part of this PUD process or the approved site plans may be appealed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. This provision shall not preclude an individual residential lot
owner from seeking a variance following final approval of the PUD, provided such variance
applies only to the specific lot involved and does not involve alterations to open space areas as
shown on the approved PUD site plan or any overall PUD matter. Any new modifications or
deviations introduced on the final development plan (and not shown and approved earlier for
the preliminary development plan) would result in the determination that the final
development plan is not in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary
development plan and shall require a preliminary plan review.
Sec. 19.6
PLAT REQUIREMENTS.
Plats shall comply with all requirements of the Township general ordinances, zoning ordinances and Act
288, Public Acts of 1967, as amended, the Subdivision Control Act. Upon application for a preliminary
plat, the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission may require from the applicant any
additional information or data or additional graphics, reports or written materials, prepared by a
professional planner, engineer, architect and/or expert (with such professional being approved by
the Zoning Administrator), to assist in determining the appropriateness and adequacy of the site

plan or other zoning matters for the Zoning Administrator’s written report, which is required in
Sec. 50-26 in the Georgetown Township Code of Ordinances. To aid in the Zoning Administrator’s
investigation of the plat or other zoning matters, such additional material, data or reports required
may include, but need not be limited to, traffic impacts; impact on significant natural features and
drainage; soil tests; street connectivity; floodplain or wetland impacts; and other pertinent
information.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of seven (7) days
following the publication of lawful notice of its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation.
Section 4. Severability. In the event that any one or more sections, provisions, phrases, or words of this
Ordinance shall be found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity or the enforceability of the remaining sections, provisions, phrases,
or other words of this Ordinance, and the balance of this Ordinance shall remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.
The vote in favor of this Ordinance was as follows:
YEAS:
NAYS:
ABSENT/ABSTAIN:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND ORDINANCE DECLARED ADOPTED.
CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTION
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by Georgetown Charter Township
Board at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory procedures.
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by Georgetown Charter Township
Board at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory procedures.
I hereby certify that notice of this ordinance was published in the Grand Rapids Press on _________ and
on ______________.
I further certify that the votes for adoption of the foregoing resolution were as follows:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
Abstained:
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Jim Wierenga, Georgetown Charter Township Supervisor

Dated:

By:
Kelly Kuiper, Georgetown Charter Township Clerk

Dated:

Explanations of Tweaks to Ordinances Already Initiated
Sec. 22.9
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
E. Any regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be approved through a
finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall result in a higher quality of
development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards.
Regulatory
modifications are not subject to variance approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this
PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
provision shall not preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following
final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations to open space areas
as shown on the approved PUD site plan.
F. A table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all deviations from the
established zoning area, height and setback regulations, off-street parking regulations, general
provisions, or Township subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses
and developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Explanation
No change, as previously proposed.
Sec. 22.5
PUD APPLICATION.
(A)
Preliminary Plan Application Requirements
Following the pre-application conference, applicants seeking approval of a PUD District shall
submit a complete application for review to the Zoning Administrator. When the Zoning
Administrator determines the application to be complete, the PUD application will be sent to the
Planning Commission for a workshop session, followed at a later date by a Planning Commission
public hearing. Such application shall include the following (unless determined by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
(1) A completed application form and ten (10) copies of a preliminary development plan shall
be provided to the Zoning Administrator. The preliminary plan shall contain the following
site plan information:
aa. A table (either on the plan or in the narrative) which specifically details all
deviations from the zoning district involved, including area,, height and setback
regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township
subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and
developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
(3) Narrative Statement: A narrative statement describing:
a. The objectives of the PUD and how it relates to the Intent of the PUD District, as
described in Section 22.1.
b. The relationship of the PUD to the qualifying conditions listed in Section 22.2.
c. Phases of development and approximate time frames for each phase, including
anticipated start and completion dates of construction.
d. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within
the PUD.
e. A table (either on the plan or in the narrative) which specifically details all
deviations from the zoning district involved, including area, height and setback
1

regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township
subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and
developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Explanation
No change, as previously proposed.
Sec. 22.10

STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each of the following standards:
A. The proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2.
B. The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the
capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
C. The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious to
the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
D. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as described in
Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative development for the
community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
E. The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of this Chapter, respective of being either a
preliminary or final PUD request (Preliminary PUD’s must meet Section 22.5, A and Final PUD’s
must meet Section 22.8, D.)
F. Any proposed modification or deviation from any zoning district or other zoning requirement
shall be approved only through a finding that the modification or deviation shall result in a
higher quality of development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards.
Such modifications or deviations are not subject to variance review or approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals. No part of this PUD process or the approved site plans may be appealed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. This provision shall not preclude an individual residential lot
owner from seeking a variance following final approval of the PUD, provided such variance
applies only to the specific lot involved and does not involve alterations to open space areas as
shown on the approved PUD site plan or any overall PUD matter. Any new modifications or
deviations introduced on the final development plan (and not shown and approved earlier for
the preliminary development plan) would result in the determination that the final
development plan is not in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary
development plan and shall require a preliminary plan review.
Explanation
After reading through the minutes from the previous meeting, the attorney stated that the previous language
proposed was consistent Michigan courts and the word substantial is generally legally defensible.
However, the other option is to approve this language above, which essentially means that if ANY new
deviations are introduced on a final development plan, the plan is no longer in substantial conformance and
would need to revise the preliminary plan and have a new public hearing. This would allow the Planning
Commission to not have to make the determination on whether a new deviation throws the plan out of
conformance and automatically requires a revised preliminary plan.
2

Sec. 19.6
PLAT REQUIREMENTS.
Plats shall comply with all requirements of the Township general ordinances, zoning ordinances and Act
288, Public Acts of 1967, as amended, the Subdivision Control Act. Upon application for a preliminary
plat, the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission may require from the applicant any
additional information or data or additional graphics, reports or written materials, prepared by a
professional planner, engineer, architect and/or expert (with such professional being approved by
the Zoning Administrator), to assist in determining the appropriateness and adequacy of the site
plan or other zoning matters for the Zoning Administrator’s written report, which is required in
Sec. 50-26 in the Georgetown Township Code of Ordinances. To aid in the Zoning Administrator’s
investigation of the plat or other zoning matters, such additional material, data or reports required
may include, but need not be limited to, traffic impacts; impact on significant natural features and
drainage; soil tests; street connectivity; floodplain or wetland impacts; and other pertinent
information.
Explanation
The Township’s attorney provided more specific language after reading through the Planning
Commission’s conversation.

3

GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP
OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN
(ORDINANCE NO. 2026-09)
At a regular meeting of the Township Board for the Charter Township of Georgetown, held at the
Township Offices on ___________, 2026, the following Ordinance was offered for adoption by
Township Board Member ________, and was seconded by Township Board Member ________,
as recommended by the Planning Commission:
(REZ2605) Ordinance No. 2026-09:
AN ORDINANCE/ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF GEORGETOWN CHARTER
TOWNSHIP REGARDING REZONINGS.
THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF GEORGETOWN (the “Township”) ORDAINS:
That chapters 2, 3, 4, 17, 20, 22 of the Georgetown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance
is hereby amended to state as follows:

Sec 2.77 OPEN AIR BUSINESS
Includes uses operated for profit substantially in the open air, including, but not limited to:
A. Bicycle, utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or home equipment sale. repair,
rental, or storage services.
B. Outdoor display and sale of garages, motor homes, mobile homes, snowmobiles, farm
implements, swimming pools, and similar activities.
C. Retail sale of trees, fruits, vegetables, shrubbery, plants, seeds, topsoil, humus, fertilizer,
trellises, lawn furniture, playground equipment, and other home garden supplies and
equipment.
D. Tennis courts, archery courts, shuffleboard, horseshoe courts, rifle ranges, miniature golf,
golf driving ranges, children's amusement park or similar recreation uses (transient or
permanent).

Sec 3.4 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES
P. One (1) freestanding pool accessory building may be permitted in addition to
accessory buildings permitted in subsection 3.4(E), (I), (K) and (N) provided that the
square footage of the pool accessory building does not exceed 200 square feet in area.

The pool accessory building shall meet the requirements in Chapter 3 for location on
the parcel and shall only be allowed for swimming pools with at least 500 square feet
in area. Pool equipment which includes, but is not limited to, heaters, pumps and
filters shall meet the requirements in Chapter 3 for location on the parcel but
may be located closer than ten (10) feet to any main building subject to
compliance with the Building Code. The pool accessory building and pool
equipment shall be removed immediately if the pool is removed. (revised 8/10/09)

Sec 4.2 THE ZONING MAP
D. Rezonings. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission
and the Township Board in the review of any rezoning request:
1.

Consistency – Is the proposed zoning district and all of its allowed uses
consistent with the Township Master Plan?

2.

Compatibility – Is the proposed zoning district and all of its allowed uses
compatible with the surrounding area and nearby properties involved?

3.

Capability – Is the property capable, including utilities and infrastructure,
of being used for all the uses that would be allowed?

4.

Whether there have been sufficiently changed conditions or
circumstances since the property was initially given its current zoning
district designation to justify a rezoning.

5.

Whether the rezoning would constitute a prohibited “spot rezoning.”

6.

Whether a mistake or error was made in the original zoning district
designation.

Sec 17.3 USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL
The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all
applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met.
A. Waste treatment facilities.
B. Water supply and treatment facilities.
C. Waste disposal facilities, including incinerators and sanitary landfills.
D. Airports and Landing fields.
E. Commercial soil removal.
F. Heating and electric power generating plants.

G. Junk yards and salvage yards.
H. Commercial radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised
November 1997).
I. Community Fair. (revised 4/24/17)
J. Restaurants having a distillery, brewery or winery on the same site. (revised 6/25/18)
K. Utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or equipment rental or storage services.
Sec 20.4 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS
AN. Utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or equipment rental or storage
services.
1. The Planning Commission may require a six (6) foot fence or wall to be
constructed along the rear and/or sides of the lot to keep trash, paper, and
other debris from blowing off the premises.
2. The businesses shall comply with all applicable Health Department
regulations regarding sanitation and general health conditions.
3. The Planning Commission may, to ensure strict compliance with any
regulation contained herein and required as a condition of special land use
approval, require the permittee to furnish a Surety Bond in accordance with
Section 29.4(B) of this Ordinance.
4. The lot area used for parking shall be hard-surfaced and the display or
storage areas shall be provided with a permanent, durable, and dustless
surface, and shall be graded and drained so as to dispose of all surface water.
5. The site plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Inspector to ensure the proposed
parking and storage locations are compliant with the Fire Code and provide
access for the apparatus.
6. All lighting shall be shielded from adjacent residential areas.

Sec. 22.5.1 DEVIATIONS
The applicant may request (and the Township Board may approve) any deviations or
regulatory modifications from traditional zoning district requirements and shall provide
evidence that the deviation shall result in a higher quality of development than would be
possible using conventional zoning standards.

Sec. 22.7 TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTION
1. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Township Board
shall hold a public hearing and review the application, including the preliminary
development plan, the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the
recommendation. (revised 11/8/2010)
2. The Township Board shall make its findings based on the standards approval of Section
22.10 as to approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
3. An approval with conditions shall not be considered final (which means the rezoning is not
final until such time) until the applicant submits a written acceptance of the conditions and
all necessary revisions to the preliminary development plan to the Township Board.
4. The PUD rezoning shall become effective as per publication requirements in the
Zoning Enabling Act.

Balance of the Ordinance is Unchanged. Except as expressly changed or amended by this
Ordinance/ordinance amendment, the Georgetown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Effective Date. This Ordinance/ordinance amendment shall become effective upon the
expiration of seven (7) days after a summary thereof is published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the Township.
Severability. In the event that any one or more sections, provisions, phrases, or words of
this Ordinance shall be found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity shall not affect the validity or the enforceability of the remaining sections,
provisions, phrases, or other words of this Ordinance, and the balance of this Ordinance shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
The vote to adopt this Ordinance/ordinance amendment was as follows:
YEAS:

____________________________________________________________

NAYS:
ABSENT
ABSTAIN:
ORDINANCE/ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DECLARED ADOPTED.

CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTION
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by Georgetown Charter
Township Board at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory
procedures.
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by Georgetown Charter
Township Board at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory
procedures.
I hereby certify that notice of this ordinance was published in the Grand Rapids Press on
_________ and on ______________.
I further certify that the votes for adoption of the foregoing resolution were as follows:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
Abstained:
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Jim Wierenga, Georgetown Charter Township Supervisor

Dated:

By:
Kelly Kuiper, Georgetown Charter Township Clerk

Dated:

Explanations for Ordinances Not Yet Initiated
Sec 2.77 OPEN AIR BUSINESS
Includes uses operated for profit substantially in the open air, including, but not limited to:
A. Bicycle, utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or home equipment sale. repair,
rental, or storage services.
B. Outdoor display and sale of garages, motor homes, mobile homes, snowmobiles, farm
implements, swimming pools, and similar activities.
C. Retail sale of trees, fruits, vegetables, shrubbery, plants, seeds, topsoil, humus, fertilizer,
trellises, lawn furniture, playground equipment, and other home garden supplies and
equipment.
D. Tennis courts, archery courts, shuffleboard, horseshoe courts, rifle ranges, miniature golf,
golf driving ranges, children's amusement park or similar recreation uses (transient or
permanent).
Sec 17.3 USES REQUIRING SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL
The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all
applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met.
A. Waste treatment facilities.
B. Water supply and treatment facilities.
C. Waste disposal facilities, including incinerators and sanitary landfills.
D. Airports and Landing fields.
E. Commercial soil removal.
F. Heating and electric power generating plants.
G. Junk yards and salvage yards.
H. Commercial radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised
November 1997).
I. Community Fair. (revised 4/24/17)
J. Restaurants having a distillery, brewery or winery on the same site. (revised 6/25/18)
K. Utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or equipment rental or storage services.
Sec 20.4 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS

1

AN. Utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or equipment rental or storage
services.
1. The Planning Commission may require a six (6) foot fence or wall to be
constructed along the rear and/or sides of the lot to keep trash, paper, and
other debris from blowing off the premises.
2. The businesses shall comply with all applicable Health Department
regulations regarding sanitation and general health conditions.
3. The Planning Commission may, to ensure strict compliance with any
regulation contained herein and required as a condition of special land use
approval, require the permittee to furnish a Surety Bond in accordance with
Section 29.4(B) of this Ordinance.
4. The lot area used for parking shall be hard-surfaced and the display or
storage areas shall be provided with a permanent, durable, and dustless
surface, and shall be graded and drained so as to dispose of all surface water.
5. The site plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Inspector to ensure the proposed
parking and storage locations are compliant with the Fire Code and provide
access for the apparatus.
6. All lighting shall be shielded from adjacent residential areas.
Explanation
The last time the Planning Commission discussed these ordinances, there was a consensus that
the use should be separate from the other Open Air Business uses, but that it should be only
permitted as a special land use, it should be located in the Industrial District, and it should
include site specific standards. The site-specific standards proposed are taken from those already
required for other Open Air Businesses and address the Planning Commission’s concerns with
layout of the parking/storage areas, ensuring that the plan must meet Fire Code and be reviewed
by the Fire Inspector.

Sec 3.4 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES
P. One (1) freestanding pool accessory building may be permitted in addition to
accessory buildings permitted in subsection 3.4(E), (I), (K) and (N) provided that the
square footage of the pool accessory building does not exceed 200 square feet in area.
The pool accessory building shall meet the requirements in Chapter 3 for location on
the parcel and shall only be allowed for swimming pools with at least 500 square feet
in area. Pool equipment which includes, but is not limited to, heaters, pumps and
filters shall meet the requirements in Chapter 3 for location on the parcel but
may be located closer than ten (10) feet to any main building subject to
2

compliance with the Building Code. The pool accessory building and pool
equipment shall be removed immediately if the pool is removed. (revised 8/10/09)
Explanation
The township had an enforcement this summer on a property that installed their inground pool
pump and water heater 2’ from their side property line in a required side yard. The ZA made the
determination that pool equipment, including pumps, heaters, filters, etc., were considered part of
the pool and therefore must meet the same setbacks as the pool.
As a result, the ZA was made aware by different contractors that pool equipment is routinely
installed closer than 10’ from main structures and that practice is permitted by the Building Code.
While it is still reasonable to ensure that the equipment should be a certain distance from
neighboring property lines, it also seems reasonable to allow for the equipment to be located closer
to the house as permitted by the Building Code, in keeping with general practices. This ordinance
would allow for that.

Sec 4.2 THE ZONING MAP
D. Rezonings. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission
and the Township Board in the review of any rezoning request:
1.

Consistency – Is the proposed zoning district and all of its allowed uses
consistent with the Township Master Plan?

2.

Compatibility – Is the proposed zoning district and all of its allowed uses
compatible with the surrounding area and nearby properties involved?

3.

Capability – Is the property capable, including utilities and infrastructure,
of being used for all the uses that would be allowed?

4.

Whether there have been sufficiently changed conditions or
circumstances since the property was initially given its current zoning
district designation to justify a rezoning.

5.

Whether the rezoning would constitute a prohibited “spot rezoning.”

6.

Whether a mistake or error was made in the original zoning district
designation.

Explanation
The Township’s Attorney was concerned that this current ordinance section on rezonings was
missing elements that Michigan courts take into consideration. The language has been proposed
to be added to the ordinance under the direction of Township legal counsel to keep our ordinance
up to date.
3

Sec. 22.5.1 DEVIATIONS
The applicant may request (and the Township Board may approve) any deviations or
regulatory modifications from traditional zoning district requirements and shall provide
evidence that the deviation shall result in a higher quality of development than would be
possible using conventional zoning standards.
Explanation
The Township’s Attorney recommended adding a section to the PUD ordinance that explicitly
states an applicant’s ability to request deviations.

Sec. 22.7 TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTION
1. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Township Board
shall hold a public hearing and review the application, including the preliminary
development plan, the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the
recommendation. (revised 11/8/2010)
2. The Township Board shall make its findings based on the standards approval of Section
22.10 as to approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
3. An approval with conditions shall not be considered final (which means the rezoning is not
final until such time) until the applicant submits a written acceptance of the conditions and
all necessary revisions to the preliminary development plan to the Township Board.
4. The PUD rezoning shall become effective as per publication requirements in the
Zoning Enabling Act.
Explanation
The Township’s Attorney recommended adding more language that directly calls the PUD a
rezoning to emphasize that a PUD is its own type of zoning district. Note also that Sec. 22.6:
Planning Commission recommendations states that the Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the Board to approve, approve with conditions or deny the PUD rezoning
request. Further, Sec. 22.7: Township Board Action, states that the Board shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the PUD rezoning request.

4

Why is there no maximum PUD size requirement proposed as the Planning Commission
discussed?
Explanation
See question 3 of the Township attorney’s opinion document. Overall, this could hurt the
Township’s ability to regulate larger developments and keep us in the dark about a developer’s
ultimate plans. The township already imposes time limits on PUDs in Sec. 22.8. which can help
ensure that projects are completed in a timely manner.

5

8/20/2026

Public Act 234
• The “Trojan Horse”
• “A renewable energy project that received
special land use approval under section
502 on or after January 1, 2021 is
considered to be a prior nonconforming
use and the special land use approval shall
not be revoked or modified if substantial
construction has occurred or if an
expenditure equal to 10% of the project
construction costs or $10,000.00,
whichever is less, has been made.”
• If we approved SUP, and they spend just
$10,000, they are locked in
Bauckham thall, p.c.

1

2026 “Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning Workshop” – Appendix to Handout

Hot Topics in
Planning and Zoning
CATHE RINE P. K AUF MAN; T. SE TH KOCHES; MICHAE L W. BIL A
MICHIGA N TOWN SHIPS AS SOCIATI ON

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

1

Catherine Kaufman, Seth
Koches & Michael Bila
BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C.
www.MichiganTownshipLaw.com
269-382-4500
[email protected]

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

2

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

1

Presentation Overview
1. Renewable Energy
2. Data Centers
3. Short-Term Rentals
4. Ordinance Enforcement
5. Land Division Act Amendments

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

3

Questions
• Questions may be asked as we go if
clarification is needed
• If you have an extremely specific
question, please wait until a break
or after the presentation – we are
happy to talk to you!

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

4

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

2

Interlude – Moratoriums
PUTTING A PAUSE ON THINGS

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

5

Moratoriums
•

Temporary pause on applications or approvals of
certain uses while Township considers updating
regula ons

•

Typically for uses suddenly rising in popularity that
your zoning ordinance did not consider

•

Moratorium is not a prohibition, must be timelimited and must be used to actively consider new
regula on

•

Generally must adopt both zoning ordinance and
police power ordinance to make moratorium effec ve

•

Moratorium ordinance must explain in detail why it is
needed, and set strict time limits (6-month maximum)

•

Consider adding general moratorium power directly into
Zoning Ordinance – then can adopt later by resolution
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

6

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

3

Renewable Energy
SOLAR, WIND, BATTERY; PA 233

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

7

Background of Renewable Energy
• Wind turbines, solar panels, battery
energy storage systems
• Large/utility scale systems vs small-scale
home or business systems
• Large investments continue to be made –
new projects regularly being proposed all
over the State
• Public Act 233

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

8

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

4

Public Act 233
• Remains in effect
• Preempts/takes away local control for
projects over a certain size
◦ 50 MW+ of solar or battery; 100 MW+ wind

• A developer can go directly to the
Michigan Public Service Commission and
get complete approval for their project
◦ Unless you have a “CREO” (discussed
shortly)
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

9

PA 233 Litigation
Four key rulings from the Court of Appeals:

1. Administrative Procedures Act
MPSC did not need to follow it

2. “Hybrid Facilities”

Combining MW values is perfectly acceptable

3. CREO limitations

Only items listed in Section 226(8) – no more

4. Affected Local Unit

Includes all municipalities regardless of zoning

Pending at Michigan Supreme Court

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

10

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

5

Local Regulation – CREO
• “Compatible Renewable Energy Ordinance” is the only way to force a
developer to come to you locally for approval
• State law very strict on what can be in a CREO – Only the standards
listed in Section 226(8), nothing more
• This was major part of litigation – some townships tried to add more
things to a CREO like overlay zoning districts. Court of Appeals rejected
that position:
◦ “A CREO may not contain additional requirements more restrictive than those

identified in that statutory provision, including by adding categories of requirements
not found in MCL 460.1226(8).”

• If your township very strongly wants to review the project themselves, a CREO
allows you to do so, but subject only to State’s standards
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

11

Local Regulation – CREO
• This is essentially it (MCL 460.1226(8))
• CREO Standards (solar) –Setback – 300’ nearest point outside wall occupied community

building, dwelling non participating properties; 50 feet public road ROW; 50 nearest shared property line
non participating parties
◦ Fencing up to electrical code
◦ Maximum sound 55 dBa average hourly decidable as modeled at nearest outside wall non participating
◦ Dark Sky Friendly
◦ 25’ height maximum at full tilt

• CREO Standards (wind):

◦ Setback: 2.1 times max blade height to nearest occupied building
◦ Setback: 1.1 times max blade height to participating property structures, property lines, public rights of
way, electric lines
◦ Up to 30 hours per year of shadow flicker on occupied buildings
◦ Height capped by FAA standards
◦ 55 dBa at nearest dwelling on nonparticipating property
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

12

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

6

Local Regulation – Workable
•

Township adopts an ordinance that purposely does not
comply with CREO or State standards
o Sets regulations above and beyond what PA 233 allows

•

Developer voluntarily chooses to work with the Township
o Developer would rather work with the township and do a
little bit more work than go through State process

•

Developer can always fall back on MPSC, but often sticks
with Township as long as the workable ordinance is
reasonable and township works in good faith
◦ We have seen examples of developers who bully down
workable ordinances
◦ Some development companies are more aggressive than
others

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

13

MPSC Process
• If Township has no ordinance, a CREO that is too
restrictive, or a workable ordinance that the
developer doesn’t like, they go to the MPSC
• MPSC holds several hearings/meetings
• Township given intervenor funds and chance to
make statements, but does not make the final
decision
• Developer required to provide notice and hearings
within Township (per MPSC)
• MPSC process extended, anecdotally complex and
careful
• 10 projects in process now – none finalized yet

◦ https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/regulatory/facilitysiting/renewable-energy-and-storage-facility-siting#CurrentApps
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

14

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

7

So… What do I do?
• The ultimate decision on regulation is entirely in the hands of the
Township Board/Planning Commission
• Attorneys, planners, engineers, consultants can all tell you their
stories and preferred avenues, but every township, developer, and
project is different
• CREO? Workable? Nothing?

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

15

Final note: small-scale projects
• Townships still control projects under 50
MW solar/battery; under 100 MW wind
• Roof-mounted, ground-mounted
accessory solar
• Can regulate setbacks, height, lot
coverage, screening, decommissioning
• Review Zoning Ordinance for regulations,
whether you allow them and where

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

16

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

8

Data Centers
CONTROVERSY; REGULATION

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

17

Data Centers –
Generally
• Warehouse or series of warehouses
containing computer systems and
servers
• “Backbone” of the internet
• All information on the internet has
to be stored somewhere – that
somewhere is a Data Center
• Stores/analyzes data, runs AI
systems that we see everywhere
these days

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

18

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

9

Data Centers – Types
• Hyperscale
◦ Massive building or campus dedicated solely to data
◦ These are mainly what you hear about in the news

• Coloca on
◦ Inside the principal building or in an accessory
building.

• Edge
◦ Smaller centers built closer to hubs of activity and the
end user.

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

19

Why the sudden interest?
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

STATE GOVERNMENT

• Executive Order from President
Trump to “dominate” AI industry

• PA 181 and 207 of 2024

• “Remove barriers to and encourage
adop on of AI”
• Establish “minimally burdensome
na onal standard”
• Allow AI companies to “innovate
without cumbersome regula on”

• Eliminates 6% sales and use tax on
eligible data center construction and
equipment purchases
• Must invest at least a set amount of
money; create jobs; other
requirements

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

20

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

10

“Sudden” interest?
• Already ~44 data centers in Michigan of
various sizes
• Have been around in some form for
many years
• Large server rooms can sit inside
buildings completely hidden from sight
• Hyper-scale are newer and creating most
controversy

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

21

Data Centers – Controversy
Public and township officials have long list of very
real concerns:
• High demand for utilities
• Water cooling/excessive water usage
• High electric rates which could come back on
consumers
• High power demands require energy providers
to keep open old coal plants/open new gas
plants – not moving towards green energy
• Political/personal concerns about data security
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

22

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

11

Data Centers – What do I do?
• As soon as you can: Review your ordinance
for anything resembling Data Center
◦ Does not need to use the word “data center.”
Anything that can be reasonably interpreted as
similar
◦ May be “permi ed” use in certain districts

• Consider moratorium
• Keep an eye on the news – planned projects
can be announced to the press before the
Township is told
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

23

Data Centers – Can’t I just ban them?
• Exclusionary Zoning
• MCL 125.3207:
◦ A zoning ordinance shall not have the effect of totally
prohibiting the establishment of a land use in the
presence of a demonstrated need in the township or
surrounding area, unless a location does not exist
within the municipality where the use maybe
appropriately located

• Is there “demonstrated need?”
◦ See Trump and Whitmer’s statements

• Appropriate loca on?
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

24

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

12

Data Centers – Can’t I just ban them?

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

Source: Planet Detroit, Brian Allnutt, Sept 18, 2025

25

Data Centers – Site Selection
• Availability of resources (namely
electricity) is huge considera on
• Must be located near large power lines
with excess capacity
• Township should consider available
public services, roads, surrounding land
uses, industrial nature
• Should be limited to industrial areas

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

26

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

13

Data Centers – Electricity
• Use enormous amounts of electricity - in many cases
it uses more power than the entire township or
county
◦ DTE Energy has 4 GW of active data center projects and
proposals, Michigan’s total peak electrical load is 18 GW

• Electric usage and rates: will they go up?

◦ Data is mixed
◦ Some areas with data centers see rate increases, others see
decreases. Very hard to pinpoint one specific cause

• Michigan’s tax benefits require that the facility pay
for all their own electric costs, including expansion
of grid
◦ But: experts say this is not enough

• MPSC sets u lity rates - we cannot regulate it
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

27

Data Centers – Electricity
• What can we regulate?
• Ask for documentation:

◦ Proof of compliance with electrical code
◦ Proof it supplies needs independently of current
energy in the Township – no local rate increase

• “Power Usage Effectiveness” rules

◦ Total facility energy divided by energy required to
run just the computers inside the facility
◦ Ratio of 1.0 means that all power entering the
facility is used to power computers and nothing
else
◦ Ratio of 1.2 considered very high-efficiency
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

28

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

14

Data Centers – Vibration
• Another large harm/concern
• Complex algorithms/measurements can be
implemented – but think about how you will
enforce them
• Require vibration isolation, vibration monitoring
equipment, regular reviews

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

29

Data Centers – Noise
• A very serious concern, and one which has been
realized in Dowagiac
• Dowagiac residents within 1 mile of data center
filed Federal Lawsuit alleging constant, highpitched cooling and operational noise
◦ Plaintiffs report headaches, sleep disruption,
lower property value

• Know the causes: computers themselves, air
coolers, generators, diesel backup

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

30

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

15

Data Centers – Regulating Noise
• Can require different decibel values for daytime
vs nighttime
• Require screening and landscaping around
components such as air conditioners, fans,
backup generators
• If cooling systems are roof-mounted, require
larger setbacks
• Limit testing of equipment to weekdays

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

31

Data Centers – Public Input
• Public input on projects is very high, and very
much against these projects
• Public come from all over State/country to
speak at meetings – post on social media
• Public concerns are very real, no question that
data centers generate very real harms
• But as we know – we cannot ban them outright
(without facing a tough lawsuit)
• How do we regulate to minimize negative
impacts?
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

32

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

16

Data Centers – Public Input
• Require developers to put their cards on the
table – no NDAs, no confidential documents
• Put out as much information as you can, as early
as you can
• Make developers take the heat – they should
have representatives answering questions and
providing detailed information
• Encourage public to involve themselves on this
project, not their imagined worst-case-scenario

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

33

BREAK
NEXT UP: SHORT-TERM RENTALS, ENFORCEMENT, LAND DIVISION

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

34

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

17

Short-Term Rentals
R E S ID E N T IA L IM PA C T S ; R EG U L AT IO N

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

35

Short-term rentals – Generally
• Rental of a dwelling unit (house, apartment,
duplex) on a short-term basis, generally less
than 30 days at a me
• Michigan does not regulate STRs at the state
level (yet?)
• Every local jurisdictions each set their own
rules; regulations vary widely by township, city,
and village
• Concentrated along Great Lakes shoreline,
inland lakes, and tourist des na ons

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

36

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

18

STRs – Legislation
• House Bill 4722 (2021): Would have made STRs
a permitted residential use statewide; passed
House 55-48 but died in Senate. Local control
preserved
• HB 5438 (2024): Proposed statewide STR
registry with 6% excise tax distributed to local
governments; preserved local regulatory
authority
• HB 5138, 5139, and 5140 (2025): Unified
taxation structure, mainly to municipalities

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

37

Pros of Short-Term Rentals
• Economic Impact: STRs generate tourism revenue, support local businesses,
restaurants, and recrea onal services
• Property Owner Rights: Allows owners to generate income from seasonal or
secondary proper es
• Tourism Support: Expands available lodging options in areas without sufficient
hotel capacity
• Property Maintenance: STR operators often invest in property improvements
and upkeep to a ract guests. Can increase property values

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

38

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

19

Cons of Short-Term Rentals
•

Housing Availability: Conversions from long-term rental or owner-occupied to STR reduce
housing supply for year-round residents

•

Neighborhood Character: Transient occupants can disrupt the stability and community feel of
residen al neighborhoods

•

Nuisance Complaints: Noise, parking, overcrowding, trash, and disorderly conduct are
common complaints from neighboring residents

•

Enforcement Burden: Monitoring compliance and responding to complaints requires
dedicated staff and resources

•

Infrastructure Strain: Increased demand on roads, water, sewer, and emergency services,
especially in peak tourist season

•

Affordability Impact: Research shows STR growth can put upward pressure on home prices
and rents in popular areas

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

39

Regulating STRs
First: Check Zoning Ordinance

◦ Is it allowed anywhere?
◦ “Lodging house” “Boarding house” etc

Two primary ways to regulate:
1. Entirely through zoning
◦
◦

Allow as permitted use (site plan approval only)
Special land use – treat like any other

2. Minimal required zoning, remainder police
power licensing
◦
◦

Allow in certain zones, subject to license
Police Power ordinance has licensing
requirements

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

40

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

20

Regulating STRs
Regulations to consider:
• Registration requirements
• Safety inspections (smoke/CO, fire extinguishers)
• Cap on number of licenses in township
• Cap on number of occupants (septic system cap)
• Parking requirements
• Noise/nuisance
• Local contact person
• Rental frequency
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

41

Enforcement
• Enforcement one of the toughest issues
• Remember: Every regulation you write, you will need
to enforce
• How will you investigate? Collect evidence?
• Who will do enforcement?
◦ If you assign this to your current ordinance officer or
zoning administrator, they will be forced to scale back
other tasks – only so much time in the day

• STR regulation is not a money-maker for townships,
enforcement may cost money you will not get back

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

42

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

21

Legal issues and Lawsuits
• In addition to enforcement, lawsuits and legal trouble
around STRs can be intense
• Any regulation which limits STRs in any way will
inevitably result in someone losing some amount of
money/income
• STRs in high-value areas can bring in thousands of
dollars per week – if you shut that down, you have an
individual with a very high financial motivation to
challenge you in court
• Certain cases can be “easier” to litigate than others –
but all of them are costly
• Most complex litigation comes from licensing
criteria/applications/picking winners and losers
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

43

Ordinance Enforcement
GIVING EFFECT TO REGULATION

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

44

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

22

Two Types of Ordinances
• Zoning Ordinance and Police Power
• Zoning are district-specific, Police Power
apply across the entire township
• Enforcement of the two is largely the
same

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

45

Ordinance Enforcement Policy
• Township Board sets the policy for ordinance
enforcement – must give staff clear direction
• Proactive vs Complaint driven
• Allocating budgets to enforcement staff
• Allow staff to communicate with attorney when
needed
• Recognize that ordinance enforcement is not a
money-maker

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

46

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

23

Ordinance Enforcement Steps
1. Identify violations
2. Investigate violations
3. Informal resolution
4. Formal resolution
5. Following up

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

47

Identifying and Investigating Violations
• Board sets overall policy: proactive or
complaint-based
• Investigation is critical step: evidence gathering
• Inspecting property: must obtain consent or a
search warrant to physically enter property
◦ You cannot wander onto someone’s property to
conduct an inspection – 4th Amendment

• Take photographs from public roadways, if
neighbors are the ones complaining, they will
give you consent to enter their property for
photos
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

48

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

24

Checking Ordinances
• Confirm that your ordinance actually
says what you think it says!
• We have had ordinance officers write
tickets for things that are not violations
◦ “We have always said this is a violation” –
but do you have it in an ordinance?

• Confirm violations are Municipal Civil
Infractions – not misdemeanors
• Confirm process with attorney and
courts – know how things will play out
before we get too deep

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

49

Informal Resolution
• If investigation reveals issue, best first step is
informal resolution
◦ Simply talking to the property owner/occupant, or
sending a letter identifying issues and asking for a
phone call/follow-up.

• Many issues can be resolved informally – more
than you might think
• People may just not know regulation, or may be
in the process of moving things around
• Give time for informal process, but not too
much – we want progress, not delay
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

50

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

25

Formal Resolution
• If no response/activity from informal attempts,
must move to formal resolution
• Prepare and issue Municipal Civil Infraction
citation
◦ First: Check your ordinance – does it say violations
are MCI? Or Misdemeanor? Is this thing actually a
violation of the ordinance?

• Send ticket to attorney with all evidence and
communication collected thus far
• Case will proceed in court – pre-trial hearings;
potential formal hearing (mini-trial)
BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

51

Following Up
• If formal hearing is successful, you will end up
with a court order to enforce ordinances
• Attorney can guide you through putting the
order to work – orders typically give property
owner X days to fix problem, otherwise
Township can fix it themselves and tax the costs
• May need to attend follow-up court hearings

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

52

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

26

Land Division Act
RECENT STATE LAW AMENDMENTS

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

53

What is land
division?
• State law allows property owners to
divide up their parcels without
burden of creating a platted
subdivision
• Dividing parcels = creating more
parcels, more land to be sold and
developed
• Many other complexities, but for
our purposes that is its primary
function

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

54

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

27

Land Division Act Amendments
Two key changes made:
1.

Allows up to 10 divisions for the first 10 acres of an
unplatted parcel
◦
◦
◦
◦

Previously up to four divisions were authorized
Law more than doubles number of divisions permitted –
overrides any township rule to the contrary
Goes into effect March 24, 2027
Practically, allows more dwelling parcels to be created
without the need for a plat

2. Allows local ordinance to increase the number of splits
authorized
◦ Can’t decrease

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

55

County Control
•

Land Division Act (already) allows
townships with a population of 2,500 or
less to transfer land division authority to
the County

•

Some townships have transferred this
authority – check your own

•

If you have transferred authority, County
can (without your approval) authorize more
than ten splits under new amendments

•

Consult with County and Board to see if you
want to take back land division authority

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

56

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

28

Conclusion and Questions
BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C.
www.MichiganTownshipLaw.com
269-382-4500
[email protected]

BAUCKHAM THALL, P.C.

57

Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning  August 2026

29

Memo to Planning Commission
10/7/2026 Meeting
Ordinance Discussion Regarding Sec. 3.8 FENCES

RELEVANT ORDINANCE
This report will specifically focus on sections B and C of the ordinance below:

Sec 3.8 FENCES
A. The erection, construction, or alteration of any fence shall conform to the requirements of
the applicable zoning district. It shall be unlawful to construct any fence in any public
right-of-way.
B. Unless specifically provided for elsewhere in this ordinance, a fence may not exceed a
height of three (3) feet within the front setback area (including the required and nonrequired front yard) of all streets, or a height of six (6) feet in any other area; provided,
however, that a security fence in a non-residential zone, or a security fence for the
protection of public utility buildings or improvements may be extended by a barbed arm
at least six (6) feet from the ground which increases the height of a fence to a maximum
of seven (7) feet. (revised 10/14/2013)
C. A fence up to a height of four (4) feet may be permitted within the front setback area
provided, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, the design, location, and materials
of such fence will not obscure the visibility from such setback area of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic along the street.
D. No fence located on property within a LDR, MDR, LMR, or MHP zoning district shall
contain any barbed wire or electrification, except as provided for in Sec. 3.8(B). (revised
6-25-2001)
E. In the case of a double frontage lot in any Residential District, a fence up to six (6) feet in
height may be erected in the rear yard, but shall be set back from the rear property line a
minimum of five (5) feet. (added November 1995)

1

*The image above is included in the Sec. 3.8 of the Zoning Ordinance

2

BACKGROUND
Parcel in question: 2374 Port Sheldon Ct. (70-14-28-200-044)

Satellite View

Street View

3

Recently, the ZA received a request to construct a 6’ fence in a front yard located at 2374 Port
Sheldon Ct. (70-14-28-200-044). Initially, the ZA informed the applicant that the proposed fence
was too tall in the front yard as the Zoning Ordinance restricts the height of fences in any front
yard to a maximum of 4’ as noted in Sec. 3.8 (B) and Sec. 3.8 (C). Below is the plan the
applicant submitted:

4

The ZA provided the applicant with the following drawing indicating where a 6’ fence can be
constructed (in blue) due to the location of the only building on the site and the yard
determination:

5

The applicant informed the ZA that their neighbor to the east located at 2370 Port Sheldon Ct.
just recently installed a new 6’ security fence in their front yard and inquired how their
application would be any different. After completing an inspection and doing research into the
neighboring property, it became clear that the neighbor had been approved to put a 6’ security
fence in their front yard and it had been constructed within the last couple of years.
A former ZA approved the building permit PBZC24-0045 with a work description of: Zoning
Compliance Approved for Interior remodel of existing commercial building and site work
including above ground and underground fuel tanks, charging stations, lighting, and
perimeter fencing. PV: $318,984
On the building plans submitted with the permit that were approved, the 6’ high fence is
specifically called out as shown below:

6

The plans show the new fencing being installed in the front yard and the height being 6’. Google
street view shows the fencing clearly at 6’ in height:

The ZA then received a call from the applicant’s contractor, who stated that he disagreed with the
ZA’s interpretation of Sec. 3.8 FENCES, specifically section B:

B. Unless specifically provided for elsewhere in this ordinance, a fence may not exceed a
height of three (3) feet within the front setback area (including the required and nonrequired front yard) of all streets, or a height of six (6) feet in any other area; provided,
however, that a security fence in a non-residential zone, or a security fence for the
protection of public utility buildings or improvements may be extended by a barbed arm at
least six (6) feet from the ground which increases the height of a fence to a maximum of
seven (7) feet. (revised 10/14/2013)

The contractor stated that their interpretation was that the security fence provision allows for the
height to be up to 7’ with barbed wire in the front yard, so long as the fence is for security. The
contractor’s interpretation of the ordinance would be consistent with what the previous ZA
determined for the neighboring site.

7

Ultimately, the ZA decided to remain consistent with the previous ZA’s approval of the
neighboring security fence but informed the applicant that they would be bringing the ordinance
to the Planning Commission to receive their interpretation moving forward.

DETERMINATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission must determine the following:

1. Does the security fence provision in Sec. 3.8 (B) allow for fencing of up to 6’ in the
front yard under certain circumstances? Or is a security fence of 6’ in height never
permitted in a front yard without a variance?
2. What are the circumstances where a security fence would be warranted?
a. Is a private business simply requesting a security fence enough of a
justification to construct a 6’ security fence in the front yard area? (…
security fence in a non-residential zone…)
b. If the answer to the statement (a) above is no, when is a security fence
warranted? Is a security fence only allowed for public utility
buildings/improvements, not for a business’ private property? If a business’
private property could pose a risk to the public, could a security fence be
warranted? Is a private business ever eligible for a security fence?

8