approved leland township planning commission … · microbreweries with a special use permit; any...

Leland Township Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2018

APPROVED LELAND TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Wednesday, February 7, 2018—7 p.m. Leland Township Office

123 N. St. Joseph St., Lake Leelanau, Michigan

MINUTES

PRESENT: Skip Telgard, Jon Stimson, Dan Korson, Mary Foster; Zoning Administrator Tim Cypher, Planning Consultant Larry Sullivan, Recording Secretary Dana Boomer ABSENT: Michael Collins GUESTS: 4 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Dan Korson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA: Mr. Telgard moved to approve the agenda as presented; supported by Mr. Stimson. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. MINUTES: Mr. Stimson moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 2018, as presented; supported by Ms. Foster. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None REPORT FROM TOWNSHIP BOARD REP: Mr. Collins was not present; Mr. Cypher had nothing to report. REPORT FROM ZBA REP: There is a meeting scheduled for February 8. This meeting will include a continuation of the discussion on an ongoing case that includes a lawsuit, and a new case regarding a dimensional variance. There has been an application received for a new case; a meeting to review this case will be held in March. Public Hearing – Korson opened the public hearing at 7:15 pm. AURORA – ZONING AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.25 (Microbreweries) Cypher summarized the proposed zoning amendment, brought to the board by Aurora Cellars. The amendment has been under discussion by the PC for several months, and would allow existing wineries to produce small amounts of beer to be sold on-premise. Sam and Taylor Simpson from Aurora summarized their request. They would like to be able to produce and sell small amounts of beer on their licensed winery premise. The unlicensed portions of their property (their large event area) may currently have beer brought in by caterers or other licensed personnel, but beer cannot be brought onto the licensed portions of their property (which includes the winery tasting room and their current small event area). The MLCC will not grant them a license to produce and sell beer in the licensed areas until the township has the appropriate zoning in place. The PC had previously


received a memo from township attorney Robert Parker on the topic (attached). The PC discussed the amendment. Telgard asked about the differences between licensed and unlicensed areas. Currently, it is a violation of their liquor license if a customer takes beer provided by a caterer in the unlicensed area into the licensed areas of the property. Also, the winery staff cannot serve any beer, regardless of area. The PC discussed the production of hops and whether they should be required to be grown on property; there is a very small amount of hops that are needed for the production of beer. The majority of beer is made up of water; the PC briefly discussed the use of local water, which is not an agricultural product. Telgard asked how many events are held on property – S. Simpson replied approximately 30. Telgard asked about the production – he feels that 175 barrels (350 kegs) is a lot of beer. 30 events at 2 kegs per event still leaves almost 300 kegs to sell. This is a lot of beer, and changes the dynamic from a winery to a tavern or brewpub. He is concerned about this dynamic. Suttons Bay has already dealt with the issue of taverns and brewpubs, and ended up having issues with it. They originally decided to allow breweries in the agriculture district, but after seeing the growth of the existing breweries in the commercial district they revoked the ability to have breweries in the agriculture district. The PC discussed wineries, breweries and distilleries in other townships. Other townships have determined that microbreweries and distilleries are different than wineries, when located in the agriculture district. The PC and Simpsons discussed the consumption of the beer. Some of the beer would be sold in growlers to be consumed off-premise, as well as the beer that would be sold at events and out of the tasting room. While Aurora does not plan to have a bar/tavern atmosphere, the proposed amendment would not prevent another business from coming in, making an investment in enough land and infrastructure to receive a winery license, and then opening a bar. The PC discussed the allowed production amount and what should be allowed in the agricultural district. Larry Sullivan spoke on the proposed amendment. There is no limitation on how many small events Aurora has, so that number could go up significantly. There will also be some spoilage and spillage in the production and consumption. The economics aren’t there for setting up processing lines to put beer into cans or bottles for off-site consumption. The PC also needs to consider what the difference would be between allowing beer and allowing spirits. While the licensing requirements are different, they both have little connection to the land, unlike wineries and cideries. It could be very difficult to defend beer and not spirits, and it could also be very difficult to defend a somewhat arbitrary limit on production – why 175 barrels is OK but 500 is not. Sullivan stated that the easiest thing to do would be to prohibit the production of food on property – this would inhibit the creation of a bar- or pub-like atmosphere. If the PC is going to allow beer production, the definitions need to be carefully crafted with the best interest of the community in mind. Tying production to a level of beer consumed in the township may be an option; however, as multiple wineries may be interested in doing this, they will all have the option of producing whatever the set amount is. The definitions and standards will be important when the next producer comes forward and wants the production level raised. The PC and Simpsons continued the discussion of production and consumption of beer. The PC then discussed the memo from attorney Robert Parker. Parker points out that wineries and cideries are directly tied to and ancillary to the agricultural uses of the land, while the microbreweries do not use significant amounts of agricultural products, and in the case of the proposed amendment are not tied to on-property production. Susan Odom, Suttons Bay Township – Odom can hear the music from Aurora Cellars events at her house, which is 1.5 miles away; sometimes going on until 10:30 at night. She understands that the


decibel levels are within the limits of the permit, but it is disturbing to her and her guests. As far as a microbrewery goes, she doesn’t really want to see Aurora’s business get bigger, because of the sound that is already travelling. She is the chair of the Suttons Bay Township PC, and has some thoughts on the PC end, but she is mainly here as a resident who is already affected by Aurora Cellars. S. Simpson says he takes the concerns of his neighbors seriously, and has worked with them to mitigate issues. They hire staff to make sure that events end at 11, and that all of the permit requirements are met; they take this very seriously. They would like to expand their business, while meeting all of the requirements of the township. They would like to find a middle ground with the PC, and are open to amending the production levels that the PC is concerned about. T. Simpson stated that they abide by the requirements of their winery permit. The events currently on their property in the unlicensed area bring in beer that is generally not from Leelanau County; they would like to be able to have these events use local beer. Telgard brought up that approximately 2/3 of the township is zoned AC, where wineries are allowed. This allows for the potential for a significant number of wineries with associated microbreweries. The PC and Simpsons discussed the potential for opening this up to larger operations or more operations. The PC discussed how to regulate this from becoming a pub or watering hole; this is very difficult. Cypher read the introduction to Section 18.25, which refers to wineries and cideries as appropriate farm activities, designed to encourage and promote agricultural activities. Korson asked how allowing events at the wineries is any different than allowing microbreweries at the wineries – events (such as weddings) have little to do with agricultural production, they are just another mechanism for wineries to increase their business. The PC, staff and Simpsons discussed whether this would be better done as a Special Use Permit or conditional rezoning. This would also be very complicated, and there is no provision in the ordinance that would allow this. So the ordinance would have to be amended anyways. The PC discussed the ability to do this and how it would be done, and what conditions may be. The PC discussed the similarities and differences between holding events and microbreweries. The PC discussed the definitions and standards for microbreweries, how these should be set, and how to set them to prevent huge businesses from moving in. Telgard reiterated that beer is different than wine – it has a different feel and culture. He is worried about the effect of this on the agricultural district – not just Aurora doing it, but the businesses that follow. He would like a wider audience to weigh in. Cypher agreed with Sullivan that it will be hard to separate the difference between a microbrewery and a distillery, and why one should be allowed when the other isn’t. S. Simpson asked about the possibility of adding additional conditions in, to prevent additional big businesses moving in. Sullivan stated that it is possible – he brought up the example of townships that allow trucking terminals in agricultural zoning, but only on Class-A roads. This is a significant limiting factor. S. Simpson suggested a minimum size for the parcel (such as 40 acres), and requiring a certain amount of the land to be under agricultural cultivation. The PC discussed this option. Telgard asked about the requirement for using local hops. While there is currently a glut in the market, there are still numerous growers in the area. S. Simpson stated that hops on the Leelanau peninsula are being shut down by economics; hops can be grown much more easily in areas where land is less expensive, such as Benzie County and eastern/southern Grand Traverse County. It is unknown whether there will be the varieties they need to purchase grown in Leelanau County in the


future. The PC discussed this requirement. The PC returned to the discussion on the concerns regarding production size and limitations. Foster is OK with the idea of microbreweries, but the idea needs refinement. Telgard agreed, but wants to make sure the refinement happens before the microbreweries are OK’d. Korson is OK with microbreweries, because he doesn’t see how it’s different or less agriculture related than events. The PC needs to get this right the first time, not put something in place and then have to revoke it when something goes wrong. At this point, the PC is looking at putting an amendment into place to allow microbreweries with a Special Use Permit; any winery looking to put a microbrewery in would need a SUP. When adding definitions and other conditions, another public hearing would need to be set. Susan Odom stated that Suttons Bay PC spent 6 months discussing the microbrewery ordinance amendment that they approved and then ended up rescinding. They struggled with enforcement, ties between microbreweries and agriculture, and other issues. The proposed amendment says nothing about traffic or enforcement. The PC discussed the timeline. If the PC was happy with the language tonight, it would still take three months or more to finish amending the ordinance, going from the PC to the County PC to the Township Board to the waiting period before the ordinance goes into effect. Holding PC special meetings would allow the language to be developed more quickly, but the county would likely not hold a special meeting for a single issue, and the Township Board may or may not hold special meetings to speed their portion of the process. After the ordinance is amended, it takes another two to three months to get a Special Use Permit. The PC continued the discussion of the timeline, and the new language for an ordinance amendment. Telgard asked whether the beer production could be contracted out like wine can; it can, if allowed by the township. The PC discussed. There would need to be a requirement that the beer served be produced on site. The PC discussed other requirements, including the requirements to use locally produced hops. Acreage and production quantity will be other requirements. The agreed upon conditions were: Minimum size of parcel should be 20 acres. Minimum in agricultural production should be 7 acres. There shall be no microbreweries allowed that are not tied to businesses with winery licenses. The beer must be produced on-site. The maximum production will be 90 barrels (180 kegs). Korson asked if these numbers were too small for anyone to bother with? It is not within the PC’s purview to discuss economics – if they set standards and no-one wants to work within those standards, that is not an issue for the PC. The PC continued the discussion of the timeline and language. Aurora’s state licensing will take 6-9 months after township approval of their SUP. Sullivan, Cypher and the Simpsons will work to develop new language. They will present this at the March meeting; if the language was approved, it could go to a public meeting in April. Then, it could go to the County PC for their April meeting, back to the PC for the May meeting, and to the Township Board for their May meeting (the second Monday in May). If all of this went through, a SUP could theoretically be granted by July. S. and T. Simpson left the meeting at this time. Susan Odom stated that when the language is developed, tasting room hours, traffic, and amount/location of beer consumption should be addressed. The numbers of events should be limited,


and not increased. She sees the PC struggling with the same thing Suttons Bay struggled with – is this a use for the agricultural zone? This should be the focus. Suttons Bay has an ordinance regulating special events in the agricultural zone, which limits the length of time that loud music can be played. She is concerned about the number of nights that events can be held, and the increased traffic, because of the effect on the neighbors. The focus of the PC should be the safety and health of the citizens, not just the business of the applicants. She does not agree with the weddings being tied to agriculture; but she understands that farmers need a way to make money. She is on the Michigan Agrotourism Board, and it’s very hard to justify the noise and traffic that come with events in agricultural zones. There are ongoing court cases, and proposed legislation that would deal with all of these issues. Tasting room hours, how the beer is sold, events, association with food trucks, etc. all need to be discussed. There are a lot of considerations when it comes to microbreweries, especially in agricultural district. The PC and Odom discussed the issue. While Aurora is limited to 30 large events a year, they can have unlimited smaller events (100 people or less). Telgard would like to have more public input on the subject. Odom states that it is unfortunate that Aurora’s permit allows them to play music loudly enough that she can hear the lyrics while lying in bed at 10:30 at night, living 1.5 miles away. Korson closed the public hearing at 9:41 pm. The PC continued the discussion of microbreweries. Stimson stated that he was concerned that this was not an appropriate use for the agricultural district. Stimson moved to not allow microbreweries in the agricultural district in Leland Township. Telgard seconded. Telgard stated that while he was of a like mind, he was uncomfortable with having this motion made after the Simpsons had left the meeting after the public hearing closed. The PC discussed. This motion can be made at the next meeting, but the PC was unsure if Sullivan and Cypher should spend additional time on it if the PC is going to pass a motion of this sort at the next meeting. Korson is uncomfortable with amendment language that does not include a requirement for growing local (either Leland Township or Leelanau County) hops. Foster does not see the issue with 90 barrels of beer, but would like to see the full language of the proposed change before voting. Stimson feels that the PC has spent so much time on the specifics of the language that they have come back full circle to whether it should be allowed or not. He made the motion because he believes this is a can of worms, and there is no need for this – the township residents as a group are not showing a need for this. Ayes: Telgard, Stimson, Korson, Nays: Foster. Motion passed. Business – BUNBURY – ZONING AMENDMENT (Character Preservation) - Tabled ELECTION OF 2018 OFFICERS Stimson moved to keep Korson as Chairman, Telgard at Vice-Chair, and Foster as Secretary. Telgard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. MASTER PLAN REVIEW This will be continued next month. Cypher distributed the Citizen Survey Findings from the 2005 citizen survey. Cypher is looking for the actual questions from the survey, and will distribute them when he finds them.


OTHER BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Comment: Telgard stated that he would like the PC to look at the events part of the winery ordinance, both the large and small events, with the possibility of looking at the number and size of them, as well as the sunset clause that requires renewal. The PC and staff discussed the sunset clause. There is currently only one event venue in the township, and that is Aurora Cellars. The PC feels the citizen survey is important. Zoning Administrator Comment: Sullivan had previously been working on a list of potential issues for the PC to discuss as regards to the MP review. Cypher and Sullivan will finalize this and distribute to the PC. Public Comment: Steve Mikowski, Lake Leelanau – He was interested in the comment that was made about beer being mostly water; he feels wine is mostly water too, that comes from the sky and other sources into the grapes. He feels the performance of the PC tonight was unprofessional. There was not enough preparation for the meeting, and thinks it was unacceptable for a motion to be made on a zoning amendment application after the applicants had left the meeting. He feels the PC should look up Margaret Thatcher’s definition of consensus. Korson replied that he feels the PC’s purpose is to discuss. Their job is to take in all of the data, discuss and make a decision. Not go by a pre-conceived notion that the PC should approve an application. The PC needs to exercise its due diligence. If the applicants don’t like it, they are more than welcome to come back and the PC can do this again. If the PC implemented this ordinance change without full discussion, and then had to reverse its decision, that would be an even bigger debacle than taking a long time to discuss a proposed change. Mikowski doesn’t disagree on this, but feels that this motion should have been made in the presence of the applicants, even if a special meeting needed to be held. Adjournment: There being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 10 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Dana Boomer, Recording Secretary Date Approved: 3/7/2018

approved leland township planning commission … · microbreweries with a special use permit; any...

Documents