City Council Recap: 3 Meetings in One Week

Lowell City Council held three meetings this week, spread over two days. On Monday, they met as the Zoning Board of Appeals before continuing into a regular meeting as Lowell City Council. Then, on Wednesday, they held a special meeting to hear public comments about a 425 agreement proposed with Lowell Charter Township.

All councilmembers were present for Monday’s meetings, but Councilmember Leah Groves was absent on Wednesday.

Public Comments: Flat River Concerns Continue

Public comments about the Flat River were offered on both nights.

Before Monday’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, resident Diane Smith asked if there is anything that prohibits the city from helping to clean up the Flat River. At previous meetings, City Manager Mike Burns has said maintenance of the river is not one of the city’s core functions, and councilmembers have stated that the city does not have capacity to assist with clean-up efforts.

“Who determines how city funds are spent?” Smith said in concluding her comments. Jim Salzwedel, who serves as chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, said he didn’t have an answer but would look into Smith’s questions.

Resident Maureen Pawloski said she was at an earlier meeting in which it was said the city couldn’t be involved in addressing weeds in the Flat River. She noted that Grand Rapids has partnered with projects on the Grand River, and while she understood Lowell wasn’t Grand Rapids, she hoped the City of Lowell would do likewise.

During the ZBA meeting, Councilmember Eric Bartkus that the river would be discussed later that night during the regular Lowell City Council meeting. However, during the regular meeting, when he made a motion to add the Flat River to the night’s agenda, there was no second and the item was not added.

During public comments during the regular meeting, resident Bruce Matthews spoke on the establishment of a no-wake zone in the Flat River. He had previously proposed that the city look into this matter, and in August, Matthews received what he described as a “well-researched memo” from Burns about why the city manager was not in favor of bringing this issue before Lowell City Council. The main objection to creating a no-wake zone appears to be the perceived difficulty in enforcement.

Matthews said he understood the council could add any item to the agenda itself, and he encouraged councilmembers to do so. “The one glaring absence in the research in Mike’s memo…is the experience of our neighbors in Vergennes,” according to Matthews.

Vergennes Township has had a no-wake ordinance since approximately 2004, Matthews said. He understood the township has had no difficulty with enforcement, and that there are no township costs associated with the ordinance. He encouraged councilmembers not to dismiss the idea of a no-wake zone out of hand.

Regarding the condition of weeds in the river, Matthews thought it was short-sighted for the city not to take action given the importance of the river to the City of Lowell’s identity.

Smith spoke after Matthews to reiterate his comments. “I do not understand what we as citizens have to do to get your attention,” she said.

Resident Craig Fonger said he wanted to create a coalition of citizens to form a 501(3)c organization to fund the clean-up of the river.

Next to speak was Ruth Devine, a new resident of Lowell. She and her husband previously lived on the other side of the state and purchased a home on Hudson Street with a view of the Flat River. While the view was gorgeous when they viewed the home in April, Devine said the couple was disappointed to see the river had turned into a swamp by June when they moved in.

“We thought this was probably the most charming little town ever,” Devine said. “I can’t believe you’re not more concerned and that you’re not on fire for dealing with this.” She added that she has lived on a river before and know the conditions can change, “But I certainly didn’t expect what we bought, and I certainly hope my taxes…can help do something (about) this.”

During Wednesday’s special meeting, resident Perry Beachum said during public comments that he understood the city didn’t see the river as a core function. However, he thought councilmembers should know that there are dead deer in the river that are slowly making their way toward Main Street.

Council Comments on the River

During their final comments of Monday’s regular meeting, several councilmembers addressed the condition of the river.

Councilmember Leah Groves welcomed Devine to the city and noted that she too moved here because she thought Lowell was cute and charming. She was sorry Devine was disappointed with her view but noted that it sounded like Fonger was going to try to solve the problem – “Put me on the list Craig, I’d love to be involved,” she added.

“As far as disappointment, I think we’ve gone over the fact of as a whole, as city council, what we can and cannot do,” she said. “However, that doesn’t take away from what we are individually willing to invest.”

Bartkus shared the information he had planned to mention during the requested agenda item. He said he and Smith had met to discuss fundraising efforts to raise $5,000 for Solitude Lake Management to treat a section of the river. The $5,000 includes two treatments – one immediately and one in the springtime.

“We’re going to grassroots fundraise this $5,000 starting tonight,” Bartkus said. People who want to contribute can write checks made out to Solitude Lake Management, and Smith will hold those until the $5,000 is collected. Bartkus said he had already written his check. “We think we can get to $5,000 pretty quickly.”

While they aren’t asking for any city involvement in the process, Bartkus said the city did need to give its approval to treat the land. He said the problem is getting worse and the weeds are invasive.

Salzwedel said he wasn’t sure there was enough information available about the environmental impact of the chemicals that would be used. “I don’t want to put anybody in the realm that 20 years from now that because we sprayed that – that chemical – that has built up and now there’s going to be something on the citizens that formed that committee,” he said, adding that he too had a passion for the river.

“Unfortunately, we have rules and things we have to govern by and (are) allowed to govern, but our passion is still there,” Salzwedel said.

“So it is frustrating to hear people say we are dismissive of their concerns or disappointed in their community or whatever because it just means that you didn’t get the stir-in, instant coffee fix that you asked for the day you asked for it,” said a clearly annoyed Mayor Mike DeVore. “Because that’s not how things work.”

DeVore went on to say that the council had talked to Rich Perry from Solitude Lake Management a few months ago about a plan “so we don’t fix it for a year and then it comes back.” However, during that meeting, councilmembers appeared to clearly indicate that they would not be a part of efforts to clean the river beyond facilitating conversations among interested parties.

The mayor also chastised Bartkus for trying to add an agenda item to discuss the river. “I’m pretty disappointed in that as well,” DeVore said.

Bartkus asked to respond and noted that residents along Lafayette were already paying $400 each to treat the river by their house. They did not need city approval, and the permits were going through the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) which reviews the chemicals and treatments using EPA guidelines.

“Mr. Mayor…I thought I was adding good information to the discussion,” Bartkus said. “I thought as a councilmember I’m free to at least ask for new things on the agenda.”

“Yes, sure you absolutely are,” DeVore responded. “I’m saying it’s unfair for the rest of us. Look, we want to be involved. We want to be part of the solution.”

Salzwedel asked about the proper way to add an item to the agenda. Burns replied that the city manager set the agenda, and he will add an agenda item if the council as a whole requests it.

Variance Request for Large Garage

The ZBA meeting on Monday was to consider a variance request for a new accessory building at 810 Riverside Drive. The applicants, Kimball and Patricia Dlouhy, would like to remove an existing accessory building and construct a garage that is 1,232 square feet.

The city zoning ordinance limits the size of accessory buildings on their lot to 960 square feet so a variance is needed for the additional 272 square feet. The new building would also exceed the ordinance’s limit on lot coverage by 8%.

Since a variance is a permanent exception to the zoning ordinance, six standards must be met to grant one. These are as follows:

• That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property in question but do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district.
• That the condition causing the variance request isn’t something that would be better addressed by a change in the zoning ordinance.
• That the variance is needed for the preservation and enjoyment of similar property rights as other property owners in the same zoning district and vicinity.
• That the variance will not be significantly detrimental to adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood.
• That the variance will not impair the intent of the ordinance.
• That the need for the variance was not created by any action of the applicant.

Kimball Dlouhy noted that the current garage is not large enough to hold their vehicle, and the family also has a pontoon boat and other items they would like to store. Their house is one of the oldest in the city and has a Michigan basement so storage is not practical there.

Dlouhy presented the plans for three garage options, including two that were larger than what was submitted to the city for review.

Councilmember Marty Chambers expressed a concern about the second floor of the garage being heated and having a restroom. Andy Moore, a planning consultant to the city from firm Williams & Works, said the bathroom in and of itself was ok, but the space shouldn’t be used as living quarters.

“There would be the possibility of putting in a basement or another family room. There would be the possibility of a microwave or a refrigerator but no (bedroom),” Dlouhy said.

Bartkus noted that the new garage would be moved farther away from the lot line which would be a benefit.

During the public hearing on the request, Beachum, who lives nearby, said he was supportive of the variance.

Councilmembers, acting as the Zoning Board of Appeals, voted that all standards were met and approved the variance with the condition that the building could not be used as living quarters.

Other Council Comments

During regular meeting comments, Groves shared that some members of Lowell City Council had recently attended a Michigan Municipal League conference. At the general session, the speaker noted that serving on a city council is much different nowadays since many citizens feel entitled to intrude on public servants’ personal lives.

“It really hit home for me because I’ve had some experiences in the past month or so where people are very intrusive about my personal life,” Groves said. “And it’s one, sexist because it’s not happening to anyone else and it’s two, so inappropriate…It makes me very angry and very resentful about what I put into this community.”

Special Meeting on 425 Agreement

On Wednesday night, Lowell City Council convened for a special meeting to hold a public hearing on a proposed 425 agreement with Lowell Charter Township. The agreement would conditionally transfer a 235-acre parcel of land near I-96 to the city. This would allow the city to assess and tax property there in exchange for running water and sewer services to the site.

The council meeting ran largely in the same format as a public hearing held at Lowell Charter Township on Monday. City Attorney Jessica Wood began by assuring the public that no vote would be taken that evening and then walked through the major components of the agreement.

“It’s not a debate or a back-and-forth,” Wood said about the public hearing. “This is simply an opportunity to hear from you.”

When the floor was opened for public comments, eight people spoke – six city residents, one township resident and one township business owner.

While township residents at Monday’s public hearing were mainly concerned about quality of life impacts in their area should a business park being developed near I-96, city residents on Wednesday were more concerned with water and sewer rates.

“I was hoping that if we did move forward…some of the tax dollars (received from the development) could go to offset costs,” Beachum said, noting that water and sewer rates are scheduled to increase by a combined 100% in the coming years. Previously, Burns had said that the water and sewer systems should be self-sustaining, indicating that water and sewer payments, not general tax dollars, should pay for utility projects.

“This is a gift to the developer and Lowell Township,” said city resident Greg Canfield. “What’s in it for the citizens of Lowell?”

Canfield noted the city was having to pay Wood for her time to assist with negotiations and drawing up the agreement and thought the township should have to cover 100% of the costs. He also said the city would likely have to borrow money to upgrade water and sewer facilities, and it could be years before tax dollars began trickling in from the development. Placing lift stations along Alden Nash to get utilities to the site would be a “maintenance nightmare,” according to Canfield.

“You can’t borrow your way to prosperity,” he said and worried that the City of Lowell could lose its police department if it overextended itself.

On the subject of police, city resident John Layer thought it would be cheaper to contract with the county to have the Kent County Sherriff’s Office oversee the property than to hire more Lowell officers to take care of calls there.

He also took issue with a provision in the agreement that mandated the city maintain any public roads in the development. “It’s ridiculous that we should go plow a couple streets out there,” Layer said. As for the agreement as a whole, Layer thought the council had the ability to put the matter to a referendum. “We should be able to have a vote on this,” he said.

Township resident Mary Hilger thought there were a lot of unknowns that should make people hesitant. She wondered if it might be better for the city to spend money on maintaining and improving existing infrastructure than building new utility lines.

Other concerns related to the possibility of pump stations limiting the ability to widen the road into Lowell if needed in the future, a concern that the developer was not helping to fund the project, and how new subdivisions built in the township along the utility lines could further burden the system.

While not mentioned during the Wednesday special meeting, Burns did say during the Monday regular council meeting that it had been determined that the current water treatment site couldn’t handle 6 million gallons a day. Other sites in the township’s Riverfront Parks and by the pump station on Gee Drive had been considered but weren’t viable options. Further study will be done at the original water treatment site where it is thought upgrades could be made to handle 3-4 million gallons a day.

Councilmember Comments on 425 Agreement

After the public hearing closed, Bartkus and Salzwedel thanked everyone for their comments. Salzwedel added that he had many questions as well.

Chambers said the council had been working diligently on the agreement, and a conversation was had with the developer earlier in the week about them “paying their fair share.”

“I’ve never been involved in anything like this before,” Chambers said. He is chair of the committee that has been negotiating the agreement, and he added that he’d asked Burns to reach out to other communities who have done 425 agreements to see if they can share their model.

“I want to emphasize that we’re learning with you,” DeVore said in his closing comments.

The agreement must now sit for at least 30 days before further action can be taken.