A controversial mixed-use development previously proposed for Leland’s downtown has officially failed thanks to a recent court ruling. Joel Peterson, the developer behind the proposed William and Main project in Leland, confirmed to the Leelanau Ticker that he would now pursue alternative plans for the country.
Peterson, who primarily builds custom homes through his company J. Peterson Homes, brought the William and Main project to the Leland Township Planning Commission last summer, seeking approval of a planned urban development (PUD) application. Under his proposal, Peterson would have built a three-story, 11,590-square-foot multi-use building at the corner of William and Main streets in downtown Leland. The building would have added four condominiums on the upper floors and four commercial/retail units on the ground floor to Leland’s housing stock. Had the application been approved, William and Main would have been 33 feet tall — taller than any existing building in Leland.
The uses proposed by William and Main are legally permitted in the C-1 commercial zone where the building would be located, and the 33-foot height is technically permissible under the township’s zoning ordinance, which limits commercial buildings to 35 feet. Peterson told the Leelanau Ticker that he and his team had “carefully followed the Leland Township building code” in planning the building and were confident that the Planning Commission would recognize the project as a right of use and “adopt the building plan accordingly.” Right of use usually means that the Planning Commission must approve a project if it meets building codes.
William and Main’s proposal immediately drew the ire of some locals, including former Leland Township Planning Commission Chairman Keith Ashley, who led an opposition movement against the development. While Ashley Leelanau Ticker When he declared last August that William and Main were permissible in terms of use and height, he argued that the design of the project, which he described as “very modern”, could be opposed on the grounds of its village character.
“The zoning code uses the word ‘character’ in several places when describing what is expected of a development,” Ashley said at the time. “The master plan also refers to character. In my opinion and the opinion of others, this project is not in keeping with the character of Leland.” In particular, Ashley took issue with the facade of the William and Main building and that the design would have placed the building “right on the sidewalk” of Main Street. “If they were to redesign the facade of that building to look like the rest of Leland, I would have no objections,” he said, suggesting that William and Main should be more in line with Leland’s general “quaint old village” look and feel.
The Planning Commission ultimately sided with Ashley, voting 5-0 to reject Peterson’s PUD. In a findings of fact document prepared before the rejection vote last December, the Planning Commission found that “the proposed development violates the goals, intent and purposes of the zoning code due to its mass and character and its lack of adaptability and suitability for the area in which it is proposed.”
Following the decision, Peterson filed an appeal with the municipality’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) – and threatened to take the municipality to court if the ZBA upheld the Planning Commission’s vote. In an interview with the Leelanau Ticker In December, Peterson argued that the character was “so subjective” and that Leland Township “didn’t define what they were looking for in the character, so it was basically left to individual interpretation.”
“Because we are required to do so by law, we do not have to meet anyone’s definition of character because there is no definition of character,” Peterson concluded.
The ZBA ultimately upheld the Planning Commission’s decision, and Peterson followed through on his threat to take the township to court over the dispute. Under Michigan law, parties who disagree with a ZBA’s decision are entitled to a judicial review of that decision by the local district court. In an interview with the Leelanau Ticker In February, Peterson expressed his confidence in the judicial review process and described his attorney’s arguments on the matter as “pretty damning.”
Last week, however, William and Main encountered another obstacle when Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th District Court dismissed Peterson’s appeal.
When asked to comment on Elsenheimer’s decision, Peterson confirmed that he had no plans to pursue William and Main’s concept.
“Unfortunately, the judge sided with the community, even though I thought we had a very strong argument,” Peterson told Leelanau Ticker“The property (at the corner of William and Main Streets) consists of two subdivided residential lots. So the plan from the beginning was to subdivide the property and build two village houses if we couldn’t build the mixed-use building.”
While Peterson says he would have preferred to pursue a larger project to bring more housing and retail space to Leland, he is unwilling to face the cost and uncertainty of further appeals.
“As a developer, we are aware of the risks involved, so rather than appeal the ruling and spend another year in court, we will pursue Plan B,” Peterson concluded.
This fracas is not Peterson’s first run-in with Leland Township officials. Nearly a decade ago, Peterson pursued a redevelopment plan for the then-dilapidated Leland Courthouse — a concept that would have built a small cottage development on the property. The Leland Township Planning Commission rejected his PUD proposal. Ashley, who was then chairman of the Planning Commission, voted against the project, citing public opposition to the development due to concerns about its small-town character. Peterson subsequently withdrew his offer to purchase the courthouse property, expressing frustration with what he described as a “dysfunctional” permitting process for developers.
