Keweenaw Report Your Source for Local News and Sports
Houghton City Council approved resolution 2020-314, which pertains to rezoning a parcel representing a majority of the former Michigan Smelter site, but rejected 2020-315, a smaller lot where the seaplane hoped to relocate its base of operations. The first vote was 4-3, with newer council members Brian Irizarri, Jan Cole, and Joan Suits voting against. The other count was 2-3, with Councilor Mike Needham and Mayor Bob Backon abstaining due to their membership on the Planning Commission.
Public comment was split, perhaps leaning slightly in favor when correspondence was factored in. Kristine Weidner argued that the site’s former superfund status should not be seen as a hindrance to future development. Instead, she felt it would represent an intended progression for the property per the Environmental Protection Agency’s own guidance.
There was question as to whether the property needed to have any rezoning decisions signed off on by Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). Attorney Evan Dixon cited the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, specifically MCL 324.32311.
City Manager Eric Waara said he had engaged in extensive conversations with a representative from EGLE, and had been told that local zoning decisions did not require additional approvals.
Jon Rector spoke on behalf of his family’s seaplane business. He talked about the restrictions that would be placed on operations if it was allowed to use the Coles Creek site.
Prior owners were based at Coles Creek from the mid-90’s until 2001. Rector said that the National Park Service caps the number of passengers per day, meaning his company can only run eight flights maximum. That equates to roughly 16 minutes of above average noise.
Councilwoman Joan Suits questioned whether the rezoning was consistent with the city’s stated goals.
She referenced submissions from Elizabeth Gerson. Keweenaw Report was also sent that correspondence. It is published below.
Dear Houghton City Councilors,
I’d like to reiterate part of my previous letter to the Houghton Planning Commission regarding proposed Ordinances 2020-314 and 2020-315. Also, I want to follow-up on several points from the PC public hearings, and hopefully provide some clarification.
The area up for rezoning involves 2/3 mi of Portage Waterway shoreline, west of Houghton City proper. This open stretch of Canal Road offers expansive views of the landscape. It is part of a scenic drive and bike riding loops out of Houghton, including the popular autumn color tour through the Covered Road forested area. The Houghton County Master Plan identifies the Portage Waterway as a major feature dominated by rural residential and public recreational land uses. In fact, “The Portage” is a scenic natural resource at the heart of our sense of place.
Rezoning this expanse of shoreline from R-1 residential to B-2 business, with a condition allowing hotels, combined with deed restrictions allowing buildings up to 5-stories, will also allow for the degradation of this scenic viewshed. Instead, rezoning should benefit residents and property owners, and also serve the greater good of the community…
KEEP IT SCENIC.
On the City of Houghton Zoning Map, this annexed area stands out as an island. Good rezoning decisions are made with respect to surrounding established districts, but in this case, most of that context is outside the City of Houghton. Certainly, our planning commissioners and city councilors have a primary duty to city taxpayers, and to the master plan for the city. But with these two ordinances, given the area proposed for rezoning has no contiguous border with the rest of the city, I feel it is important to also be considerate of our friends and neighbors in surrounding Houghton County townships, and those directly across The Portage in Hancock. I am not suggesting that Houghton “ask permission” from Hancock; I am merely asking the Council to recognize the primarily residential/low occupancy nature of established surrounding properties on Canal Rd, Cole’s Ck Rd and Hancock waterfront. During the public hearing, Planning Commissioners asserted there are no (or just one) residential neighbor(s). However, the Principal Uses granted by these proposed ordinances will generate noise and other negative effects far beyond the few properties technically considered as adjacent. Surrounding properties within earshot of float planes, snowmobiles, etc on the canal also include the residential neighborhoods of NW Houghton. Everyone traveling Canal Rd and M-26 will be subject to increased traffic.
Rezoning this large area from R-1 residential to B-2 business, with conditions allowing much higher occupancy and noise, will fail to control the intensity of the land (and water) use. Instead, rezoning should benefit residents and property owners, and also serve the greater good of the community…
KEEP IT RESIDENTIAL.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on these two proposed Ordinances.
KEEP IT SCENIC…
