At 176 pages, it's no War and Peace. But it's no O. Henry short story, either.

The proposed Elmwood Township Zoning Ordinance did prove itself long enough to spark interest from a room full of residents Tuesday, the date of its first public hearing.

Even those who spoke in glowing terms for the ordinance offered up specific examples of its deficiencies, which left the Elmwood Township Planning Commission with the task of sorting through stacks of suggested wording and regulatory changes.

The commission had hoped to have a final document ready for Township Board approval at its March 11 meeting, according to Elmwood community planner Bill Swanson. “We’re just about there, but we’re not there yet. We’ve worked on this a number of months that has extended to a number of years. We’re very proud of our work.”

Former Planning Commission chair Jack Kelly, who was one of those residents providing a list of suggested changes, said more time is needed. “Bill, I think your March time frame is quite ambitious. I think more like May.”

The proposed ordinance bears little resemblance to the present document, which was retained after a referendum vote of township residents held in 2003 tossed out a rewrite proposed by a previous Township Board and Planning Commission. According to professional planner Val Lazdins, whose Grand Rapids firm was hired to lead the township through the process of preparing another document, the new ordinance will be a vast improvement. It will provide Elmwood with predictable growth outcomes, be easier to enforce, and be legally defensible, Lazdins said during a presentation prior to the public hearing.

The proposed ordinance will provide new options for developers who incorporate design features favored by the township in their plans, including clustered housing, pathways and trails, extension of public utilities, preservation of open space and encouragement of farming, Lazdin said. Such plans could be rewarded with smaller lot sizes and more density.

The new ordinance also would be more restrictive. Included are design standards down to window size and placement in the commercial district, and an entire section on landscaping.

That level of regulation had some residents reeling.

Edward J. Goss, who owns one-third mile of frontage on Cedar Lake, said the ordinance would prevent his family from camping on his property as people have done for more than 100 years. Former Elmwood supervisor Noel Flohe issued a similar complaint for land he has an interest in on Cedar Lake, asking if the ordinance would require him to get a permit to hold a large family reunion.

Julie Hay, representing the Michigan Land Use Institute, offered up congratulations for the ordinance while joining residents in suggesting that requirements imposed on windmills would be too restrictive. “We want to thank you for the hard work and time you’re put into this,” said Hay.

Resident Chuck Mueller wished the ordinance had been in place to regulate several developments that had moved into Elmwood during the past few years.

“I don’t want subdivisions to look the same, one right after another, or homes to be stacked on top of each other,” he said.

One compromise reached nearly two years ago remained, a 5 acre minimum lot size in the “Agricultural/Low Density” district that dominates all but shoreline areas of Elmwood in a proposed new zoning map. However, developers who follow design standards encouraged in the ordinance can double the density level.

The minimum density for agricultural land in the ordinance rejected by residents nearly five years ago had been proposed at 2 acres with a similar bonus program for eco-friendly designs.

The latest rewrite still has some way to go before enactment. A final document must gain the recommendation of the township Planning Commission, be reviewed by the county Planning Commission, and be approved by the Elmwood Township Board.

Copies or the ordinance are available at the township office.