A proposed rewrite of the Elmwood Township Zoning Ordinance has drawn the ire of several residents, who are hoping the text is changed before it is recommended to the Township Board for approval.

The ordinance literally has been years in the making, with roots dating back to a referendum held in 2003 that overturned a rewrite approved by a previous Township Board. The Planning Commission — or more precisely a series of planning commissions as members have come and gone — have worked on a new version ever since.

Predictions of when the task would be completed have come and gone for nearly 1½ years, and the latest time frame also appears to be fading.

A joint meeting planned for March 4 with the Township Board, township attorney and planning professional Val Lazdins has been put on hold because of scheduling conflicts — and because the ordinance needs more work, according to Elmwood community planner Bill Swanson.

The delay is welcomed by Gene Meeuwenberg, who owns 20 acres that comes with 900 feet of Cedar Creek running through his property and 800 feet on Cedar Lake.

“That’s fine,” said Meeuwenberg of the delay, “as long as they are getting our view points.”

Meeuwenberg’s property represents three common complaints brought by residents against the ordinance, which would place restrictions on 100 feet of buffer land bordering lakes, streams and wetlands; restrict the use of waterfront lots even by property owners who hold family reunions; and greatly increase the minimum lot size for some properties.

The buffer along his stream would create a 200-foot-wide restricted zone
through his property. The restriction on waterfront usage would prevent him from hosting family gatherings, which he does during summer months.

And changing his land’s zoning would limit the number of splits available for development. Meeuwenberg, who said he has no plans to divide up the property, is allowed under present zoning to create 3-4 lots per acre, he said. The proposed new zoning designation would allow him to create just eight lots for the entire 20-acre parcel.

“They didn’t notify me. They should not be able to change the zoning without providing me with notice,” Meeuwenberg said.

Restrictions on use of waterfront properties aimed at preventing “keyholing” were toned down by the Planning Commission at its Feb. 19 meeting. The word “unrelated” was placed before “families” in a section restricting who may use waterfront properties beyond their owners, a change that Meeuwenberg supported.

Meeuwenberg, a board member of the Cedar Lake Association, can live with some of the protections planned on waterfront property even though they could have a larger impact on his land than others that have already been developed.

“Other people on the lake have brought in beach sand and mowed right down to the water. Now they are trying to protect the west side of the lake from being developed,” he said.

All six comments about the proposed zoning ordinance made by residents at the Feb. 19 Planning Commission meeting oppose new restrictions, according to minutes.

Those minutes also indicate that commissioners are more than willing to listen.

“Chairman (Jeff) Aprill stated that he believes that there is some legitimate concern from the community on parts of the proposed ordinance. There are a lot of simple corrections which will make it more palatable for the public … he hopes the Planning Commission will address all concerns before the ordinance moves on,” the minutes state.