Leelanau Township officials, a developer, and local citizens continue to be at odds over a potential Timber Shores Family RV Camping & Beach Resort planned on West Bay near Northport. The latest hubbub relates to a brand new legal complaint filed by the township, as well as a suit filed by adjacent property owners.

The developer for Timber Shores is proposing 355 RV sites and 15 tent sites on coastal Leelanau Township property that was previously an RV park until the late 1980s. RV parks are currently allowed in Leelanau Township’s commercial resort zoning district, with an approved site plan and special land use permit.

Right now, the township is already locked in a legal battle with Timber Shores over a complaint filed in June that asked the Leelanau County 13th Circuit Court to remove a 180-day moratorium on RV park and campground special land use applications. This suit also sought an injunction against Township Supervisor John Sanders and Township Trustee Georgina Murray, citing conflict of interest due to the couple living next door to Timber Shores.

At a special meeting on September 21, the township board met with their attorney in closed session to discuss a settlement with Timber Shores. Afterward, the board voted to approve a proposed partial settlement (pages 6-7) and authorize the supervisor to sign.

The attorney for the developer, Brion Doyle of Varnum LLP in Grand Rapids, says Timber Shores was also prepared to sign following the mediation, but this all came to an abrupt halt in recent days.

At the crux of the delay is a bit of fine print in the settlement that authorizes the release of the 1998 and 2006 sewer agreements from previous projects planned on the property. Says Steve Patmore, zoning administrator: “Significant concern was raised by the community over releasing those agreements. There are those that feel strongly that these agreements [which would require Timber Shores to be connected to the Northport-Leelanau Township Utility Authority (NLTUA) sewer at its own expense] should still apply today.”

Currently, the proposed RV development would not hook up to the municipal sewer, but would instead build its own wastewater treatment facility on the property.

Among those with serious concerns about this: Tom Oehmke and Joan Brovins, whose property abuts Timber Shores. Says Oehmke, “what is so shocking in surrendering the 1998 and 2006 sewer agreements is the magnitude of what [the developer] wants to do with the sewage.” According to Oehmke, Timber Shores has estimated the septage output at 31,000 gallons per day. “Timber Shores has admitted that the treated effluent discharged into the groundwater will eventually flow to Ennis Creek — a certified trout stream — and the bay.”

Brovins says beyond serious implications for the surrounding watershed, is the “jack-in-the-box” nature of the release of those binding contracts. “How is it that the sewer contracts were not part of the original litigation?” she poses, yet became part of the settlement. “In exchange for what?” she questions.

The nitty-gritty of the agreement between the township and the 2006 Timber Shores’ planned unit development (PUD) entities, says Doyle, “relates to the proposed creation of an on-site wastewater treatment plant and provisions for transferring ownership of that system to a municipal utility authority. The Township attorney drafted a resolution to be signed by the township supervisor that stated for the public record that the 2006 approval of the PUD expired years ago [and thus has] no effect on the title.”

Says Doyle, “The partial settlement agreement provided for the township supervisor to sign these resolutions, which he has now refused to do.”

Instead, the township board is now asking the 13th Circuit Court to decide whether the 1998 and 2006 sewer agreements associated with the Timber Shores property are still binding today.

In addition, a motion to intervene in the suit was filed on behalf of 63 property owners within 300 feet of the proposed Timber Shores development, shares Oehmke, who is the attorney for the intervenors.

Oehmke says this motion comes with two main thrusts: not only to protect the well water of the adjacent property owners but also “Ennis Creek, the clear waters of Grand Traverse Bay, and the nearby whitefish spawning grounds”. Moreover, he notes, “As 63 neighbors, we are not convinced the township attorney has us in mind, based on the shenanigans that went on after mediation (those grievances can be viewed here starting on page 7).”

For his part, Patmore does not believe that Timber Shores was looking to avoid hooking up to the municipal sewer. It’s more likely the developer wanted to move forward with a clear title for the property.

Says Doyle: “NLTUA have advised us that they have no objection to Timber Shores installing and operating an on-site facility.” Moreover, he says, the NLTUA system is over a mile from the Timber Shores property and currently does not have the capacity for additional treatment.

In lieu of hookup to the sewer, he notes “the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant requires rigorous hydrological soil and groundwater studies and design work that is all regulated and reviewed at every step by EGLE. [It also] has multiple built-in back-up redundancies, including continuous electronic monitoring that is reported monthly to the state for compliance.”

Doyle maintains, “these old documents have expired and pose no obligation on the Timber Shores developer regarding connection to a municipal sewer system. Timber Shores is confident in its position that the agreements will be released.”

Meanwhile the 180-day temporary moratorium central to the original suit expired in late September and was not extended by Leelanau Township, although Doyle shares that “the township believes that it maintains the right to reimpose it at any time…and no formal restrictions on Mr. Sanders and Ms. Murray’s involvement with Timber Shores have been agreed to by the township.”

Completely apart from the ongoing litigation, the planning commission has scheduled a public hearing for November 11 to present proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance that may affect RV parks as a special use in the commercial resort district, including increasing the waterfront setback (from 40 feet to either 100 or 150 feet).

“We are trying very hard to look at the commercial district in general and not the specific Timber Shores project,” Patmore explains.

He adds, “We have also heard considerable public input regarding how an RV resort could potentially negatively impact an existing residential neighborhood. It’s a balancing act.”

Adds Doyle, “Timber Shores has always believed that if it is simply given a fair opportunity to address those concerns and explain the truth about the development, much of the objections and fears about the development can easily be addressed and resolved.”

Patmore says Timber Shores has continued apace with required permitting and he expects a complete application that “includes the new provisions that the planning commission is working on now.”