Introduction - Ionia County

Transcription

Introduction
The Ionia County Planning Commission has prepared this Master Plan under the authority
of the County Planning Act, Public Act 282 of 1945, as amended. Section 4 of the Act outlines the
contents of a master plan:
“It shall be a function of the county planning commission to make a plan for the development of the
county, which plan may include planning in cooperation with the constituted authorities for incorporated
areas in whole or to the extent to which, in the commission's judgment, they are related to the planning of
the unincorporated territory or of the county as a whole. The plan with accompanying maps, plats, charts,
and all pertinent and descriptive explanatory matter shall show the planning commission's
recommendations for the development of the county. In the preparation of a county development plan,
the planning commission shall make careful and comprehensive studies of the existing conditions and
probable growth of the territory within its jurisdiction. Such plan shall be made with the purpose of
guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the county which will
be in accordance with present and future needs for best promoting the health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, as well as for efficiency and economy in
the process of development.”
Thus, planning is a process that involves the conscious selection of policies relating to land use and
development in a community. A master land use plan serves several functions:
Purpose of the plan
Provides a general statement of the community’s goals and provides a comprehensive view of its
vision of the future.
Provides the statutory basis for the Zoning Ordinance, as required by the County Zoning Act, Public
Act 183 of 1943 (Section 3), as amended.
Serves as the primary policy guide for local officials considering development proposals, land
divisions, capital improvements, and other matters related to land use and development; thus, it
provides a stable and consistent basis for decision-making.
Planning process
In the spring of 2000, the Ionia County Planning commission conducted a County wide land use and
planning survey. 1,820 surveys were sent out to random addresses, 736 completed surveys, or 42.7%,
were returned. The information received through the survey was used to help determine citizen attitudes
toward a number of issues ranging from zoning, to growth management, to recreation needs and farmland
protection. The master planning process began in the fall of 2000 when the County contracted with
Wade-Trim, Inc. of Grand Rapids, MI to help in the facilitation of the process. The first Planning
Commission meeting with the consultant was called and key issues and contacts were identified.
From the beginning of the master planning process, opportunity for public involvement was of great
importance. The Planning Commission hosted a total of 15 public workshops in locations throughout
the County for the purpose of collecting valuable input on various components of the Master Plan from
Ionia County residents. These included visioning workshops, goal setting workshops, and future land use
open houses.
Ionia County Master Plan
1
Once the entire draft document was completed to the satisfaction of the Joint Planning Commission, the
appropriate legal notification was given and a public hearing was scheduled for _________.
Plan organization
The Master Land Use Plan comprises three primary components: 1) the background studies profile,
including demographic and environmental analysis and studies; 2) the goals, objectives and policies
providing the philosophical basis of the plan, and 3) the future land use plan describing the County’s
vision of its future in written and graphical form.
Acknowledgements
This Plan is the result of many hours of effort on the part of the County Planning Commission and Board
as well as the citizens who attended the workshops, public hearing and study sessions. We wish to
acknowledge those officials in the County who were directly responsible for creating this Plan by including
their names below:
County Board Members:
Dale Haney, Chairperson
Phil Wilson
Bob Kietzman
Deborah McPeek
Michelle Riger-Spicer
Jack Shattuck
Don Thelen
Ralph Thelen
Cheryl Chadwick
County Planning Commission Members:
Paul Bowering, Chair
Bill Weisgerber, Vice-Chair
Nancy Patera
Jeff Sandborn
Tony Thelen
Larry Thelen
John Boerger
Greg Yeomans
Albert Almy
Joe Marhofer
Bill Carr
County Administrator:
Mark Howe
2
Chapter One
Existing Land Use Profile
The focus of this chapter is an examination of existing land use patterns, their distinguishing
characteristics and their impact on future land development and recreation.
Central to any planning study that is conducted for a community is a firm understanding of the types of
land use activities that are currently taking place within the community. A thorough knowledge of existing
land use patterns and site conditions furnishes planners and community leaders with basic information by
which future residential, commercial, industrial and public land use decisions can be made.
The existing land use map and acreage tabulation chart, included in the following pages, will serve as key
references for the County to utilize in its consideration of land use and infrastructure improvement
proposals in the future.
Physical Setting
Figure A
As depicted in Figure A, Ionia
County is located in the westcentral part of the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan and is
bounded by Kent County to the
west, Montcalm County to the
north, Clinton County to the east
and both Barry and Eaton
Counties to the south. Ionia, the
county seat is near the center of
the county, on the Grand River.
The area of the county is 575
square miles, or 368,000 acres.
Within the County, 10
incorporated areas exist including
the Villages of Hubbardson,
Saranac, Lyons, Muir, Pewamo,
Clarksville and Lake Odessa, and
the Cities of Belding, Ionia and
Portland.
Physical Setting
Ionia County encompasses both
urban and rural characteristics.
Adjacent to the larger urban areas
of the City of Ionia and Portland,
housing subdivisions and commercial establishments stretching along main corridors are prevalent.
However, once outside of this periphery vast expanses of rural agricultural and vacant areas are almost
exclusive.
At the heart of the County lies the scenic beauty of the Grand River. Although the majority of the river
shoreline is inaccessible to the general public due to the private land rights, several State Game Areas exist
within the County thereby protecting public access and allowing both residents and travelers to enjoy its
pristine beauty.
3
Methodology
Existing land use (ELU) information was determined using the 1999 tax assessment data for the County.
This data set was referenced with the County geographic information system (GIS) database thereby
allowing parcel specific tax assessment information to be depicted on a county map. Tax assessment
categories that have been utilized by the County include industrial, developmental, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), exempt, commercial, agricultural and residential. However, it was necessary to modify
these tax assessment classifications to illustrate a greater level of land use detail for the Master Plan.
As the name implies, the “exempt” classification refers to properties which are exempt from tax
assessments. This classification includes public parks, churches, schools, and publicly owned lands. For
this reason “exempt” parcels will comprise the Public/Semi-Public land use category upon the ELU Map.
The “developmental” classification refers to properties which will likely be utilized in the near future for
other purposes than the current use. An example of this may include an agricultural area which is likely to
be developed into commercial or residential property. However, this classification will not be used on the
ELU Map for the Master Plan; rather, each of these properties will be listed as their current use (i.e.
agricultural, residential). The “unclassified" tax assessment classification refers to vacant parcels of land
within the County, this classification will therefore be appropriately termed “Vacant” for the ELU Map.
In order to provide a greater level of detail for the analysis of residential properties within the County, the
“residential” tax assessment classification will be divided into rural residential and urban residential
categories.
In order to ensure an accurate existing land use map, supplementary information is typically used to verify
land use boundaries and the location of natural feature characteristics. A field survey was therefore
undertaken on July 31st, August 1st and 2nd 2000 to verify land uses. Data was gathered for all parcels
within the County limits.
The land use data was then transferred from the notes into a digital format in a GIS computer program,
specifically ArcView. ArcView was utilized to create the Existing Land Use (ELU) Map. Acreage
tabulations for the generalized land use classifications were calculated utilizing Computer Aided Design
(CAD) software which has the capability of measuring square footage areas of closed shapes.
Land Use Distribution
Each existing land use was placed in one of nine general land use categories. The Existing Land Use Map
included at the conclusion of this chapter depicts the geographic distribution of the land use
classifications.
As previously mentioned, Ionia County encompasses 575 square miles, or 368,000 acres. Data provided in
Table 1-1 indicates the total acreage occupied by each land use type and its proportion of total land area
within the Ionia County Area.
4
Table 1-1
Existing Land Use Acreage, 2000
Ionia County
Land Use Category
Agricultural-Farmstead
Rural Residential
Neighborhood Residential
Department of Natural Resources
Commercial
Industrial
Public/Semi-Public
Vacant, Woodlands, Water, R.O.W.,
Other
Total
Acres
271,124.6
56,981.3
107.2
8,126.9
5,404.9
597.91
4,136.9
Percent of Total
73.0
15.3
0.02
2.2
1.5
0.2
1.1
24,713.0
6.7
371,193.0
100.0
Source: County GIS database, tax assessment data and Wade-Trim Field Survey, July 2000.
Agricultural-Farmstead
The agricultural-farmstead category includes all parcels utilized for farming and crop cultivation purposes.
Generally, lands in this category occupy large-lot size parcels (50+ acres), and include a single-family
residence along with several outbuildings that are related to these units.
The vast majority of Ionia County encompasses agricultural uses, these lands occupy 271,124.6 acres of
land, or about 73 percent of the total land designated in the County. The agriculture category typically
includes lands under cultivation, horse farms, ranching operations, pastures and tree farms. Many kinds of
crops are grown within the County; the choice depending on local kinds of soil and systems of farming
(this information will be elaborated upon within the Natural Features Chapter of the Master Plan). Dairy
farms are also
numerous. Large
proportions of
general farms have
both dairy cattle and
beef cattle. Other
farms specialize in
fruits, including
apples, strawberries,
raspberries, pears, and
peaches.1
In an effort to slow the loss of farmland to residential development, the State enacted the Farmland and
Open Space Act; Public Act 116, of 1974 to provide for tax relief through development rights agreements.
The Act allows a landowner to enter into an agreement with the state in which the owner promises to
keep the land in agricultural use in return for state income tax credits.
1
Ionia County Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, December 1967.
5
Figure B, below, indicates the number of PA 116 agreements that existed as of 1999 on a township basis.
Through this analysis it is apparent that Orange and Danby Townships hold significantly more land in PA
116 agreements than any other Townships in Ionia County; approximately 1500 acres more than the next
largest township (Portland Township). Easton and Boston Townships hold the least amount of land in
this program at approximately 3000 acres. However, it is important to note that many of these agreements
will expire within the next 5 years and agricultural landowners may or may not choose to renew these
agreements.
Figure B
Ionia County PA 116 Farmland Summary
8000
7000
6000
5000
Acres
Enrolled
4000
Series1
3000
2000
1000
Orange
Danby
Portland
Lyons
Keene
North Plains
Township
Orleans
Sebewa
Berlin
Odessa
Campbell
Ronald
Otisco
Ionia
Boston
Easton
0
Source: Michigan State
Farmlands Office
Rural Residential
The rural residential category is characterized by either site built single-family detached housing or
manufactured homes situated upon large tracts of land. The typical density for these areas is one unit per
5 to 10 acres. Although lands with this classification are strewn across the entire County they are more
widespread within proximity to either the incorporated Villages and Cities or the several natural features,
particularly the banks of the Grand and Flat rivers. The western portion of the County, particularly
Boston Township, has a large proportion of rural residential land use. This increased development pattern
relative to the rest of the County likely stems from the Township’s proximity to the large urban center of
Grand Rapids and therefore the decreased travel time available to residents.
The rural residential category occupies 56,981.3 acres of land, or 15.3 percent of the entire County.
6
Neighborhood Residential
The neighborhood residential classification includes single-family residences built upon smaller lots than
included in the rural residential category; these homes are often built within a planned subdivision. The
typical density for these areas is greater than one unit per acre. Within a residential subdivision this
classification almost exclusively consists of site-built single-family detached structures, however it may also
include manufactured (modular) dwellings or mobile homes located outside of designated mobile home
parks used as a permanent dwelling, along with accessory buildings (i.e. garages) related to these units.
Within the County, urban residential land uses are found either directly adjacent to the City of Ionia or
Portland, or one of the popular lakes (i.e. Jordan Lake, Long Lake).
Single family residential development occupies 107.2 acres of land, or about 0.02 percent of the total land
contained within Ionia County.
Commercial
The commercial category encompasses all non-industrial businesses existing within the County. This
category is comprised of two distinct types of commercial land use, local commercial and general
commercial uses. Local commercial uses within the County are typically small-scale retail uses which
satisfy the day-to-day shopping needs of residents and cater to an immediate area (i.e. convenience stores,
food stores, hardware stores, barbershops). These uses are typically situated within proximity of an
urbanized center and are not located adjacent to a major arterial roadway as they do not rely on passing
motorists for business.
Conversely, general commercial uses are large-scale businesses catering to a broad service area which
benefit from a location on a major thoroughfare which permits good access. Such uses include gasoline
stations, restaurants, automotive sales, light auto repair/service facilities (i.e., quick oil change businesses),
theaters and landscaping suppliers.
Commercial land uses are dispersed throughout the entirety of Ionia County. The majority of these uses
however are situated along major arterial corridors such as the M-66 corridor and in proximity to the
villages and cities. Along the M-66 corridor significant large-scale commercial growth is occurring. It is
likely that this growth will continue in the future thereby transforming more land area from agricultural to
commercial land use.
At the present time, lands occupied by commercial uses account for approximately 5,404.9 acres, or 1.5
percent of the land contained within Ionia County.
Industrial
This category includes all light and heavy industrial uses ranging from manufacturing, assembling and
general fabricating facilities to warehouses, heavy auto repair facilities, and non-manufacturing uses which
are industrial in character (significant outdoor storage or shipping/receiving requirements). In analyzing
the County ELU Map it is apparent that three factors have contributed to the placement of industrial uses,
these are access to a water source (lake or river) and proximity to either an appropriate transportation
corridor or urban center. A benefit of locating an industry adjacent to a body of water is the ability to
utilize that resource to aid in the cooling of machinery. Likewise, industries also require adequate
transportation corridors to facilitate the transportation of related goods both to and from the site.
Proximity to an urban center allows an industry to be within short travel time of customers, products and
employees.
7
Industrial development occupies 597.9 acres of land, or about 0.2 percent of the total land contained
within Ionia County.
Public/Semi-Public
This category includes all lands utilized for public
purposes with the exception of all properties
owned by the Department of Natural Resources
such as governmental offices, libraries, schools,
prisons and airports; as well as, structures or areas
generally open to the public such as churches,
meeting halls, auditoriums, cemeteries and other
comparable uses. By far the largest use designated
with this classification are the state prisons located
just west of the City of Ionia.
Overall, Public/Semi-Public uses areas account for
4,136.9 acres of land, or 1.1 percent of Ionia County.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Within Ionia County are several large recreational areas owned and maintained by the DNR Parks and
Recreation Division for use by the general public. DNR parks in the County include the Ionia Recreation
Area, Portland State Game Area, Lowell State Game Area, Flat River State Game Area and the Grand
River State Game Area. A wide range of activities available within each park such as camping, fishing,
hunting and trapping, hiking, biking, horseback riding, etc.
Vacant, Open Space, Rights-of-Way, Bodies of Water and Other
All dedicated rights-of-way (highways, roads, and major utility easements) are included in this category. In
addition, water bodies, lands lying fallow, woodlands, and vacant land for which no specific use was
identified are included.
This category consumes 24,713 acres of land, or 6.7 percent of Ionia County.
8
Chapter Two
Socioeconomic Profile
The statistical collection and analysis of socioeconomic data is undertaken to gain insight into the
composition of a community’s population, its economy, and general welfare in relation to the surrounding
region. Statistical trend lines that show upward spikes or downward depressions are carefully examined for
future impact on public services and land use.
POPULATION
Historic population trends are used to predict future population growth and resultant needs. Fast growing
communities require land for development/redevelopment and accommodating services. The
composition of the Ionia County population is described with respect to age, race, and education level
within this chapter.
Historic Population Trends
(1970-1990)
Figure C
Population Increase 1970-1990
Table 2-1 depicts historic population
trends for units of government in Ionia
County. Between 1970 and 1990, the
population count in Ionia County
steadily increased, increasing by 5,967
residents or 13% during the 1970’s and
by another 5,209 residents or 10.1%
the next decade. Census data has also
provided population estimates for
1998; this updated data offers a more
accurate analysis of the current growth
trends experienced by each of the
government agencies. Between 1990
and 1998 the County has experienced a
significantly larger rate of population
growth. Within these eight years, Ionia
County has grown by 9,686 residents
or 17%. A comparison of population
growth rates has been provided with
Montcalm, Clinton, and Barry
Less than 20 percent
Counties, as it is believed that these
Between 20 and 40 percent
adjacent counties hold comparable
Greater than 40 percent
characteristics to Ionia County.
Although Kent County neighbors Ionia
County to the West, it is believed that
Kent County is not comparable due to
the County’s expanding urban areas. Between 1970 and 1990 these counties have grown by similar levels
to Ionia County, though only Montcalm County has had comparable growth in the 1990’s with 14.2%.
Regarding the Townships located in Ionia County; population levels for several of the Townships have
fluctuated to an extent between 1970 and 1980. In these two decades, although population levels have
increased by approximately 20% for most of the Townships, Easton, Berlin and Portland Townships have
experienced decreases, 27.1%, 21.4% and 5.9% respectively. (Decreases in Berlin and Easton Townships
are exaggerated due to the adoption of a 425 agreement which had the effect of transferring prison land
9
and populations to the City of Ionia.) Over the next eight years, 1990 to 1998, each of the Townships
within the County had experienced uniform population growth; this growth ranged from 8.6% to 11.3%.
Typically an upward trend in urban development and population growth in previously rural areas is
referred to as urban sprawl. This phenomenon is occurring throughout the country and can be attributed
in part to lower land costs, changing lifestyle preferences, improvements in transportation facilities, and
innovations in telecommunications.
Population growth comparisons with the State of Michigan illustrate that for each of the time periods
identified in Table 2-1; the growth rate for Michigan has been significantly lower than that of the counties
and townships.
10
Table 2-1
Historic Population Trends, 1980 to 1990
Place
1970
1980
Townships
Otisco
Change, 1970 to 1980
Number
1,479
1990
Percent
Change, 1980-1990
Number
Percent
Change 1970-1990
Number
1998
Percent
Change 1990-1998
Number
Percent
1,826
347
23.5%
1,863
37
2.0%
384
26.0%
2,072
209
11.2%
Orleans
1,707
2,230
523
30.6%
2,548
318
14.3%
841
49.3%
2,834
286
11.2%
Ronald
1,244
1,353
109
8.8%
1,715
362
26.8%
471
37.9%
1,905
190
11.1%
North Plains
1,165
1,345
180
15.5%
1,333
-12
-0.9%
168
14.4%
1,479
146
11.0%
11.1%
Keene
947
1,085
138
14.6%
1,376
291
26.8%
429
45.3%
1,529
153
Easton
3,908
4,501
593
15.2%
2,848
-1,6532
-36.7%
-1,060
-27.1%
3,118
270
9.5%
Ionia
2,444
2,842
398
16.3%
3,146
304
10.7%
702
28.7%
3,499
353
11.2%
Lyons
2,802
3,126
324
11.6%
3,276
150
4.8%
474
16.9%
3,611
335
10.2%
Boston
2,751
3,681
930
33.8%
4,313
632
17.2%
1,562
56.8%
4,713
400
9.3%
Berlin
2,213
2,660
447
20.2%
1,739
-921
-34.6%
-474
-21.4%
1,935
196
11.3%
Orange
866
994
128
14.8%
1,047
53
5.3%
181
20.9%
1,165
118
11.3%
Portland
2,532
2,245
-287
-11.3%
2,383
138
6.1%
-149
-5.9%
2,651
268
11.2%
Campbell
1,560
1,692
132
8.5%
1,814
122
7.2%
254
16.3%
1,970
156
8.6%
Odessa
3,103
3,531
428
13.8%
3,885
354
10.0%
782
25.2%
4,251
366
9.4%
Sebewa
944
1,105
161
17.1%
1,160
55
5.0%
216
22.9%
1,290
130
11.2%
Danby
1,621
2,082
461
28.4%
2,371
289
13.9%
750
46.3%
2,638
267
11.3%
Ionia
45,848
51,815
5,967
13.0%
57,024
5,209
10.1%
11,176
24.4%
66,710
9,686
17.0%
Montcalm
39,660
47,555
7,895
19.9%
53,059
5,504
11.6%
13,399
33.8%
60,602
7,543
14.2%
Clinton
48,492
55,893
7,401
15.3%
57,883
1,990
3.6%
9,391
19.4%
63,407
5,524
9.5%
Barry
38,166
45,781
7,615
20.0%
50,057
4,276
9.3%
11,891
31.2%
54,465
4,408
8.8%
Gratiot
39,246
40,448
1,202
3.1%
39,982
-466
-1.2%
736
1.9%
40,145
163
0.4%
8,881,826 9,262,044
380,218
4.3% 9,295,297
33,253
0.4%
413,471
4.7%
9,820,231
524,934
5.6%
Counties
State
Michigan
Sources: 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1998 US Census Data, General Population Characteristics
2
Easton and Berlin Township figures for this period reflect the transferring of prison populations to the City of
Ionia.
11
Table 2-2
Population Projection Trends, 1998 - 1999
Place
Counties
Ionia
Montcalm
Clinton
Barry
Gratiot
State
Michigan
1998
1999
66,710
60,602
63,407
54,465
40,145
67,126
61,406
64,054
54,684
40,027
9,820,231
9,863,775
Change, 1998-1999
Number Percent
416
0.6
804
1.3
647
1.0
219
0.4
(118)
(0.3)
43,544
0.4
Source: 1998 and 1999 U.S. Census Population Projections
Although updated 1999 population projections are not available at the township level, such
information is available for the state and counties from the U.S. Census. Table 2-2 depicts
population levels and change in population between 1998 and 1999 for the State of Michigan and
counties considered comparable to Ionia County. This updated information reveals that the rate of
growth in Ionia County less than that experienced between 1990-1998. Although the County is no
longer the fastest growing county when compared to neighboring counties, it is experiencing more
growth than the state as a whole.
Future Population Trends (2000-2020)
Projections of future population growth offer valuable insight into potential future land use needs as
well as the demand for various public services and capital improvements. County-wide and statewide population projections from 2000 through 2020 in five-year increments have been determined
using four alternative approaches to population forecasting, they are the following:
Constant County Proportion Method. The constant proportion method of projecting population assumes
that a community will maintain the same percentage of its county’s projected population in 2000,
2010 and 2020 as it has in 1996. The U.S. Census Bureau has prepared population estimates for all
local governmental units for year 1996, and the Michigan Department of Management and Budget
has prepared future population projections for all counties throughout the state through 2020.
Growth Rate Method. The growth rate method projects future population growth (or decline) based on
the annual average rate of growth of a community in the past. This method assumes that growth
through 2020 will occur at the same average rate as that which occurred during 1970-1996.
Arithmetic Method. Arithmetic method is similar to the growth rate method in that population
projections are based on growth that occurred in preceding decades. This method, however, bases
population growth on the average increased number of persons per year, rather than on percentage
rates. This projection is based on the average increase in number of persons per year during 19701996.
Average Method. This method averages the results of the earlier three methods, namely the Constant
Proportion Method, Growth Rate Method and Arithmetic Method.
As depicted below in Table 2-3 approaches to projecting the population of Ionia County estimate
that there will be between 65,500 and 79,892 persons residing in the County by the planning year
12
2020. For planning purposes the average method will be utilized, resulting in a population of 62,395
for 2000, 67,655 in 2010, and 73,062 in 2020.
Table 2-3
Ionia County Population Projections
Projection 2000
Const. Gr.
Arith.
Prop.
Rate
61,300 63,271 62,614
Average Method
62,395
Projection 2010
Const. Gr.
Arith.
Prop.
Rate
63,800 70,962 68,202
Average Method
67,655
Projection 2020
Const. Gr.
Arith.
Prop.
Rate
65,500 79,892 73,795
Average Method
73,062
Source: West Michigan Regional Planning Commission
Age-Life Cycle
Table 2-4 divides the County’s population into life-cycle categories that generally correspond with
stages of human development. Each stage carries common characteristics that can be generally
applied when assessing future needs. For example, adjustments in programs and services
(elderly/child care, schools, recreation, etc.) may be prompted by changes in the County’s dependent
population (those persons under 18 and over 65 years of age). An increasingly large preschool
population may demand increasing numbers of recreation programs focused on their development.
In 1990, 53.3% (30,414) of the people in Ionia County were male, while 46.7% (26,610) were female.
The largest age group within the County for both 1980 and 1990 has been the family formation
segment (ages 20-44). This group has comprised 37.3% and 41.4% of the population during these
two study years; it has also increased more than any other age group, by 1,293 individuals or 22.2%.
The second largest age group is held by school children (ages 5-19) with 24.3% of the population,
however this is the only group that has diminished over this decade, specifically by 714 individuals or
4.9%.
Although the County’s population has aged slightly since 1980, overall, the data suggests that the
County is attractive to empty nesters and young adults who will likely be starting a family in the
coming years. Special planning attention should be paid to providing the necessary services to
accommodate these age groups.
13
Table 2-4
1980 and 1990 Age-Life Cycle
Ionia County
Age
Group
Preschool (0-4 yrs)
School (5-19 yrs)
Family formation
(20-44 yrs)
Empty nest (45-64 yrs)
Seniors (65-74 yrs)
Elderly (75+ yrs)
Total
1980
1990
No.
4,292
14,599
%
8.3
28.2
No.
4,392
13,885
%
7.7
24.3
19,321
8,608
2,921
37.3
16.6
5.6
23,614
9,390
3,253
41.4
16.5
5.7
2,074
51,815
4.0
100
2,490
57,024
4.4
100
Change
1970-1990
No.
%
100
(714)
2.3
(4.9)
4,293
782
332
416
22.2
9.1
11.4
20
--
--
Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census, STF 1A
Persons Per Household Trends
A trend occurring nationwide and characteristic of today’s population is the declining size of
households. A household includes all of the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is
defined as a house, apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as
a separate living quarter. Despite the nationwide decline in household size, it is not uncommon for
communities to register a net increase in the housing supply while not experiencing a proportional
population increase or, in some cases, even recording a population loss.
There are several factors which demographers have linked to the declining size of households
including the fact that people are marrying at a later age than a generation ago, postponing having
children, and having fewer children when they do start a family. Nationwide, married couple families
still comprise the largest group of households, but the number of single parent (male or female)
headed households is rising and is expected to grow. This trend will further reduce the average
household size.
This nationwide trend can be witnessed on a micro-scale in Ionia County. During the previous
decade the persons per household size declined within both the County and State by approximately
the same rate, 6% (See Table 2-5). This drop is expected to continue to 2020 bringing the projected
persons per household size to 2.67.
14
Table 2-5
Comparative Persons Per Household Trends and Projections
Place
1980
1990
Change 1980 to
1990
No.
Percent
2020
Ionia County
2.99
2.81
(0.18)
(6.0)
2.67
Michigan
2.84
2.66
(0.18)
(6.3)
2.54
a Consultant
Estimate based upon historical PPH trends and 1990 age-life cycle analysis. Source: 1980 and
1990 U.S. Census, and Woods & Poole Economics.
Inc.
1997 State Economic Profile.
Race and Ethnicity
Percent of Population
The racial characteristics of the
Figure D
County’s population are shown in
Figure 2-B. Although the proportion
150.0%
of Ionia County’s white population
has declined between 1980 and 1990,
100.0%
it has been minimal. In 1990 the
50.0%
white individuals comprised 93.2% of
0.0%
the population, clearly indicating a
American Asian/Pacific
White
Black
Other Race
homogenous population. Black
Indian
Islander
persons represent the largest minority
95.5%
3.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.8%
1980
93.2%
5.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.9%
1990
segment in the County with 5.3% in
Race/Ethnicity
1990; this composition has increased
more than any other has, by 85.5%.
The composition of each of the other ethnic groups has changed minimally over this period in the
County.
1980
1990
Persons with Disabilities
It is important to identify the disability status of a population when considering the various needs of
a community. These people may have difficulty participating in recreational programs, utilizing
facilities, or even getting to designated public areas. Understanding the disability status of Ionia
County’s population may assist decision-makers in determining adequate programs and appropriate
locations for various events and activities. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA), all areas of public service and accommodation became subject to barrier-free
requirements.
Table 2-6 documents the extent of the County’s population, which as reported in the 1990 U.S.
Census was considered disabled, either with mobility and/or a self-care limitation. The Census
collects disability data for two major age groups: those between 16 and 64 years of age and those
aged 65 or older. The first age group refers most commonly to the working age population, and the
second to the senior and elderly population. Unfortunately, data regarding the preschool and school
age population (less than 16 years of age) who may be disabled was not recorded through the census.
15
In 1990, there were a total of 35,228 persons who were 16 years or older residing in the County;
11.2%, or 3,956 of which were faced with some degree of disability. Over 74.9% of the disabled
population are between the ages of 16 and 64. Approximately 25% of the disabled population are
over 65 years old.
Table 2-6
Persons with Disabilities, 1990
Ionia County
Number
Population Aged 16 to 64 years
Mobility Limitation Only
Self Care Limitation Only
Mobility and Self Care Limitation
Sub-Total
Population Aged 65 and Over
Mobility Limitation Only
Total Disabled Population
31,947
608
1,003
1,352
2,963
3,281
262
308
423
993
3,956
Total Population Age 16 and 0ver
Percent of Total Population Disabled
35,228
11.2%
Self Care Limitation Only
Mobility and Self Care Limitation
Sub-Total
Percent of
Age Group
Sub-Total
Percent of
Disabled
Population
20.5%
33.9%
45.6%
100%
15.4%
25.4%
34.2%
74.9%
26.4%
31%
42.6%
100%
---
6.5%
7.8%
10.7%
25.1%
100
Source: 1990 U.S. Census, Summary Tape File 3A
Educational Attainment
Graduate
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
College/
Associate
Degree
High
School
Graduate
No High
School
Diploma
The level of
Figure E
educational
Educational Attainment
attainment
reached by
residents reveals
50.0%
Ionia County
insights into the
40.0%
State of Michigan
30.0%
capabilities of the
20.0%
workforce, income
10.0%
levels, and the
0.0%
overall economic
vitality of the
community. The
U.S. Census
Education
compiles data on
the educational
attainment for people 25 years and over. It is important to note that the figures are not cumulative,
rather they are independent from one another. For example, if a respondent had only a bachelor’s
degree, that person would check that answer, even though a high school diploma was attained.
16
As depicted in Figure E, in 1990 of those County residents 25 and older, 40.5% graduated from high
school, 27.8% went on to college with some earning an associate’s degree, 5.5% earned a bachelor’s
degree, and 3.4% a graduate degree. In comparison, at the State level a higher percentage of the
population has attained a bachelor or master’s degree.
INCOME & EMPLOYMENT
The type and rate of growth and development in a community is largely dependent on its economic
situation relative to the surrounding region. Affluent communities generally attract high-end
shopping centers, specialty shops, and upscale services, while low-income communities may bring
marginal corner businesses and general goods. Moreover, low-income communities commonly have
low home ownership rates, blighted housing areas, and higher crime rates. Understanding where the
County stands in the economic spectrum will aid in addressing associated needs.
Income
Three measures of income (median household, median family and per capita) are depicted in Table 27 for the County and State using 1980 and 1990 Census data. It is important to note that income
statistics for the 1980 and 1990 Census reflect information from the previous calendar year (1979 and
1989 respectively) and are not adjusted for inflation.
Households are the basic consumer unit and supplier of labor to the market. A household represents
all persons (not necessarily related) who occupy a housing unit. A household may be made up of one
or more persons. Median household income (that level of income at which half of all households
earn more and half of all households earn less) is a broad measure of a community’s economic
health.
In 1989, Ionia County had a median household income of $29,430; this figure is quite comparable to
the State figure of $31,020. Census data from 1995 revealed that the median household income in
Ionia County was $36,357, surpassing the State figure of $35,940. Census data from 1995 was not
available for the two following criteria.
Family income data accounts for income earned by all members 15 years of age and older in a family.
Because many households consist of only one person, the household income figures are in most
cases lower than family income figures. The median family income for the County in 1989 was
$33,577. Once again, this figure is only marginally less than the State figure of $36,652.
The per capita income statistic represents, as is implied, income per person. In 1979, the County per
capita income of $6,100 was only approximately $1,500 less than the State figure of $7,688. One
decade later, the 1989 statistics reveal that the State’s per capita income has increased its disparity
over the County’s by several thousand dollars. The County per capita income was $3,258 less than
the State figure in 1989.
17
Table 2-7
1979 and 1989 Income Statistics
Median Household
Income
1979
1989
Place
Median Family
Income
1979
1989
Per Capita Income
1979
1989
Ionia County
17,439
29,430
20,037
33,577
6,100
10,896
State of Michigan
19,223
31,020
22,107
36,652
7,688
14,154
Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Social, Economic and Housing CPH-5-24, Table 9; 1980 U.S. Census of
General, Social and Economic Characteristics, Tables 71, 168a and 180.
Figure F depicts the distribution of households by 1989 income level for Ionia County and the State.
The largest distribution for Ionia County (20.8%) falls within the $35,000 to $49,999 household
income bracket. This household income distribution spike begins at $15,000 and continues until the
$74,999 threshold is reached. At this point, a sharp percentage drop-off occurs. County figures are
very comparable to the State given that, both distribution spikes encompass the same income levels,
and similar population percentages comprise each income group. However, the County has a higher
percentage of its population within the $5,000 to $49,999 range, whereas the State has a higher
percentage within the $50,000 to over $150,000 range.
Figure F
Distribution of Household Income
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Ionia County
State of Michigan
Less than
$5,000
$10,000
to 14,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$100,000
to
$149,000
Income
Poverty Status
Table 2-8 compares the poverty rate in 1979 and 1989 for Ionia County and the State of Michigan.
Statistics show that the percent of population in poverty is less within Ionia County than in all of
Michigan for both 1979 and 1989. In addition to Ionia County’s smaller percentage of population in
poverty, the County’s percentage has also increased at a lower rate than the State, 21.2% and 26%
respectively.
18
Table 2-8
1979 - 1989 Comparative Rates of Poverty
Percent of Population in
Poverty
1979
1989
% change
Ionia County
8.5
10.3
21.2%
Michigan
1.4
13.1
26%
Place
Data compiled by Wade-Trim.
Sources: 1989 & 1990 Census Data
Employment
This section examines employment trends within Ionia County in terms of occupation and industry.
Occupational information describes the kind of work a person does while on the job. Industry
information relates to the nature of the business in which a person is employed.
Understanding the composition of the workforce may provide insight into how a community may be
impacted by a sudden change in the economy. For example, a plant or office closing which is of
great magnitude may economically devastate a community that relies on a particular industry for its
employment. Following, Table 2-9 provides a list of the largest employers within the county. It is
clear that the Michigan Department of Corrections and Meridian provide a large share of the jobs for
residents in the county, each of these employers more than triple the number of employees utilized
by the third largest employer.
Table 2-9
Ten Largest Employers in Ionia County
Name
Michigan Department of
Corrections
Meridian
Ionia Public Schools
County of Ionia
TRW Commercial Steering
Belco
Extruded Metals, Inc.
Ionia County Memorial
Hospital
Herbrucks Poultry Ranch
Product/Service
Corrections Facility
Motor Vehicle Parts
Education
Government
Motor Vehicle Parts
Metal Products, fabricated
Metal Extrusion
Health Care
Poultry Products
Employees
1,650
1,500
481
450
400
249
230
215
140
Source: First of Michigan Corporation, April 1998
Table 2-10 shows employment by selected occupation in Ionia County for 1980 and 1990. In 1980
over one-quarter of the workforce (28.8%) were employed as Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers.
Although this sector remained the largest in 1990, and grew by 385 workers, its market share was
reduced to just under one-quarter of the entire workforce. The occupational sector that has
experienced the largest numerical growth over this decade has been the Managerial & Professional
19
Specialty increasing the number of employees by 1,009. Although it remains one of the smallest
occupational sectors holding only 4.6% of the total workforce, Private Household & Protective
Service Operations experienced the largest percentage growth (78.5%). The only occupational sector
whose workforce has decreased numerically is the Farming, Forestry and Fishing Sector. Within this
sector the number of employees has declined by 65, decreasing the sector’s portion of the total
workforce to 4.2%.
Table 2-10
Employment by Selected Occupation
Ionia County
1980
1990
Change, 1989-1990
Number
Percent
16.5
1,009
35.4
4,000
17.1
922
30.0
3.2
1,078
4.6
474
78.5
1,273
6.8
2,088
815
64.0
Service Workers
2,073
11.0
2,531
8.9
10.8
458
22.1
Farming, Forestry, Fishing
1,041
5.5
976
(65)
6.2
Precision Production, Crafts,
Repair
2,485
13.3
3,072
13.1
587
23.6
Operators, Fabricators,
Laborers
Total
5,432
18,835
28.8
100
5,817
23,420
24.8
385
4,585
7.1
24.3
Occupation
No.
Percent
No.
Percent
Managerial & Professional
Specialty
2,849
15.1
3,858
Technical & Administrative
Support
3,078
16.3
604
Private Household &
Protective Service
Occupations
Sales Workers
4.2
100
Source: 1980 & 1990 U.S. Census
Employment by selected industry in the County is shown below in Table 2-11. The table clearly
reveals that in 1980 the local economy was heavily tied to manufacturing; 35.3% of the County’s
workers were employed within this industry. Over the course of the decade, although this sector has
increased by 369 workers, its share of the total workforce declined to 30%. Two industrial sectors
which have experienced the most numerical growth over the decade are the Wholesale & Retail
Trade; and the Professional, Health, and Education Sectors. The number of employees within these
sectors has increased by 1,436 and 1,034 respectively. Although the Business and Repair Services
Industry holds only 3.0% of the total workforce it is important to note that as a percentage this
industry has grown more than any other (79.6%).
20
Table 2-11
Employment by Selected Industry
Ionia County
1980
Industry
Change, 1980–1990
Number
Percent
Percent
No.
Percent
1,123
6.0
1,147
4.9
24
2.1
Construction
860
4.6
1,129
4.8
269
31.3
Manufacturing
6,647
35.3
7,016
30.0
369
5.6
718
3.8
884
3.8
166
23.0
1,436
45.4
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, &
Mining
Transportation, Utilities, Comm.
No.
1990
3,166
16.8
4,602
19.6
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
675
3.6
1,050
4.5
375
55.6
Business & Repair Services
397
2.1
713
3.0
316
79.6
Personal, Entertainment,
Recreation Services
456
2.4
622
2.7
166
36.4
Professional, Health, Education,
Related Services
3,030
16.1
4,064
17.4
1,034
34.1
Public Administration
1,763
9.3
2,193
9.3
430
24.4
Total
18,835
100
23,420
100
4,585
24.3
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Source: 1980 & 1990 U.S. Census
21
Chapter Three
Natural Features
A community’s natural features include such elements as wetlands, water bodies and woodlands.
These elements, among others, provide a means for describing a community’s physical “character”
and aid local residents in developing “a sense of place” associated with their community.
However, the development of land can significantly impact and in turn be impacted by the natural
environment, either complementing or diminishing a community’s character. Thus, to effectively
sustain the beneficial qualities derived from natural features it is imperative that all environmentally
sensitive areas are identified, inventoried and mapped to aid community leaders and planners in
making sound land use decisions in the future. In particular, the amount, size, location and extent of
their boundaries may dictate where future development is appropriate in a community and where it
should be discouraged, thereby conserving land in its natural state for wild life and/or recreational
purposes.
Specifically, environmentally sensitive areas are lands whose destruction or disturbance will
immediately effect the life of a community by either: 1) creating hazards such as flooding or slope
erosion; 2) destroying important public resources such as groundwater supplies and surface water
bodies; or 3) wasting productive lands and non-renewable resources such as prime farmland. Each
of these effects is detrimental to the general welfare of a community and may result in an economic
loss.
A map depicting these significant natural features is included at the conclusion of this chapter.
Climate
A climate summary allows residents of Ionia County to better understand the environment affecting
their daily lives. Ionia County has a modified continental climate due to its relative proximity to Lake
Michigan. Prevailing westerly winds cross the lake and pick up warm moist air in winter and cool
moist air in summer. As a result, throughout the Lower Peninsula the winters are milder and the
summers cooler than in areas at the same latitude west of the lake.
According to the most current temperature data (1990), the average daily temperature for Ionia
County is 47.1 F, with an average winter (December) temperature of 26.5 F and an average
summer (July) temperature of 70.9 F. Precipitation data for the area indicates that total annual
rainfall amounts to 34.8 inches. Seasonal snowfall averages 47.7 inches per year.3 The total rainfall is
about equal for the summer and fall seasons under average conditions. The month typically receiving
the most rainfall is September with an average of 4 inches. From the crop-production standpoint,
the precipitation during the growing season is sufficient for a wide variety of crops. It is well
distributed and severe periods of drought are rare. Evaporation and transpiration rates are relatively
low because the air is cool, the humidity is high, and many days are cloudy or partly cloudy.
Consequently, the level of moisture in the soil generally is adequate for all crops, except those
growing in very sandy soils.
Below, Table 3-1 identifies the agricultural growing season within the County. As depicted, the
length of the growing season is directly related to the temperatures experienced.
3
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Ionia County, Michigan, 1990
22
Table 3-1
Growing Season Dates
Probability
24 degrees F or higher
28 degree F or higher
32 degrees F or higher
Beginning and Ending Dates – Growing Season Length
50 percent*
70 percent*
4/16 to 10/26
192 days
4/12 to 10/30
200 days
5/1 to 10/11
163 days
4/26 to 10/16
173 days
5/13 to 10/1
141 days
5/8 to 10/6
151 days
*Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the beginning and ending dates.
Source: National Water and Climate Center
Geology and Topography
As little as 15,000 years ago, the area that makes up Ionia County was covered by glacial ice. As a
result, except for one small area, the underlying bedrock is covered by 50 to 500 feet of glacial
material. Large ridges, or end moraines, developed along the front of the glacier as it halted in its
retreat toward the northeast. These moraines are from ¼ to 1 ½ miles in width and from 10 to 40
feet in height. They form a concentric pattern that extends from the northeastern corner of the
county toward the southwestern part. Level to undulating ground moraines formed as materials
carried by the glacier were deposited. The outwash plains in the county are the old gravelly and
sandy channels of swift streams that formed as the glacier melted.
The most conspicuous physical feature of the county is a trench that extends from a point near
Matherton, on the east side, southwest and west to a point just west of Saranac. This trench was not
cut by the Grand River but was formed by the old glacial connector between glacial Lake Saginaw
and glacial Lake Chicago.
Small glacial lakes are scattered throughout the county but are mainly in the western part. The largest
of these lakes are Jordan Lake, Morrison Lake, Woodard Lake, and Long Lake. Small glacial
lakebeds near Clarksville, west of Berlin Center, and north of Potters Corners are filled with muck or
peat. Two large depressions, or old lakebeds are in the northwestern part of the county. A glacial
drainageway that entered the county near Matherton and left it west of Saranac is now the channel of
the Maple and Grand Rivers. The one small area not covered by glacial drift occurs along the south
side of the Grand River, 1 ½ miles east of the City of Ionia. Here the reddish sandstone bedrock is
exposed.
Slope
The slope of land plays an important role in determining the suitable use and development of
property. Moderate slopes (10% - 25%) and areas of extreme slope (25% or more) may limit higher
density developments from occurring. These limitations include a heightened risk of erosion and the
difficulty in installing private septic systems. However, areas consisting of moderate and extreme
slopes are sparse within Ionia County They are generally limited to the Grand and Flat River valleys
and various tributaries. Slopes greater than 18 percent are identified upon the Development
Constraints map. The large majority of Ionia County consists of fairly level plains, which coupled
with suitable soil characteristics makes the area conducive to farming activity. Ground contour lines
23
depicted upon the Natural Features map, included at the conclusion of the chapter, indicate levels of
slope within the County with the contour lines representing 20-foot intervals.
Water
Both groundwater and surface water are vital resources within Ionia County. The primary
watersheds in Ionia County include the Grand and Flat Rivers. The waterways are important scenic
and recreation resources. Equally important are groundwater resources, as most County residents
rely on individual wells for drinking water. It is therefore essential that all water resources be
protected and managed in a manner which would ensure their quality.
Surface Water
The Flat River, a tributary of the Grand River connects in Kent County to the west. A major
regional water resource, the Grand River, passes through the center of Ionia County, flowing in a
westerly direction and eventually emptying into Lake Michigan. There are a number of tributaries of
these two major watersheds; rivers, creeks and also an extensive county drain network (see
Transportation and Utilities Chapter) flows through the County. Developmental considerations
related to said waterways include the required 50-foot distance between septic systems and any
shoreline (lakes, rivers, etc.). In addition, approval from the state is necessary to develop within
designated 100-year floodplains.
There are only a few lakes strewn across the County, primarily located in its western half. They were
formed in depressions left by irregular glacial melting and scouring as the glacial ice sheets advanced
and retreated. According to the County Health Department, the water quality of these lakes has been
acceptable for all types of recreation for many years. Sewer overflow problems caused by heavy
rainfall in the summer months have been mitigated in recent years. However, the only concern
related to surface water quality stems from any pollutants which might enter the Grand River from
upstream. In this instance the County Health Department would issue a water quality advisory
advising the general public of a safety concern.
Groundwater
Important factors in the evaluation of groundwater are the quantity and quality of the water. The
hydrologic features of the County provide residents with sufficient water quantities. According to
the Ionia County Health Department, groundwater quality within the county is of good quality.
However, a mild groundwater quality concern exists within both the Clarksville and Otisco
Township areas due to increased nitrates. Although existing concentrations of nitrates likely do not
pose health risks to adults, parents need to be aware of the quality of groundwater that is consumed
by infants. A resolution to high nitrate concentration in groundwater might include the installation
of a treatment system in the household or the tapping of a new aquifer. It is important to note that
this information is limited to general planning purposes and is not a site-specific analysis. Local site
reviews are always necessary when assessing the vulnerability of a particular location.
Contamination
In an attempt to ensure adequate water quality, it is important to create a inventory of potential
contaminants existing within the County. The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act 451 of 1994, as amended, provides for the identification, evaluation, and risk
assessment of sites of environmental contamination in the State. The Environmental Response
Division (ERD) of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is charged with the
regulation of sites of environmental contamination. A site of environmental contamination is
24
defined by PA 451, as “the release of hazardous substance, or the potential release of a discarded
hazardous substance, in a quantity which is or may become injurious to the environment or to the
public health, safety, or welfare”.
The agency publishes an annual list of environmentally contaminated sites by county, showing the
sites by name, site assessment model score, pollutant(s) and site status. This list is available off the
(ERD) website and is regularly updated with new information regarding site reclassification, site
additions, and site deletions. At present 23 sites within the County have been designated as
brownfields, however, each of these are located within various incorporated areas of the County.
Hydric Soils
The definition of a hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or
ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Typically this encompasses soils with concentrations of water within 3-feet of its surface. Within
Ionia County areas containing hydric soils are very common, dispersed throughout each of the
Townships as depicted upon the Development Constraints Map (included at the conclusion of this
chapter). While such conditions may be mitigated through engineering techniques (drainage,
excavation, etc.) these soils provide several constraints to development, including: a risk of frost
heaving, occasional flooding, and instability; said soils are also not suitable for the operation of septic
systems.
Wetlands
For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act,
the term wetlands means "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
Wetland areas are divided into two main categories, Forested (Wooded) and Nonforested. Forested
wetland includes seasonally flooded bottomlands areas, shrub swamps and wooded swamps,
including those around bogs. Wooded swamps and flood plains contain primarily oaks, red maple,
elm, ash, alder, and willow. Shrub swamp vegetation includes alder, willow and buttonbush. Shrub
swamps are wetland areas which are dominated by woody vegetation less than twenty feet tall.
Predominate species include alder, dogwood, sweetgale, leatherleaf, and water willow. Forested
wetland also include areas dominated by trees more than 20 feet in height. Normally the soil surface
is seasonally flooded with up to 12 inches of water. Usually, several levels of vegetation are present,
including such species as cedar, black spruce, tamarack and balsam fir.
Nonforested wetlands are dominated primarily by either wetland herbaceous vegetation or they are
nonvegetated. Predominate species include cattail, bullrush, sedges and other grasses, along with
broad-leaf emergents such as water lily, arrow arum and arrowhead.
Wetlands are important to a community as they provide the area with a natural ground water
purification system. Care should be taken to protect these areas from harmful intrusion from such
sources as lawn fertilizers, road salts and other similar chemical pollutants. Wetland systems filter
these excess nutrients out of the surface runoff, lessening the occurrence of unwanted plant and
algae growth in inland lakes and streams. Wetlands also provide places for breeding, nesting and
25
rearing of young waterfowl and other species of birds, mammals, fish and reptiles. They intercept
and hold flood or storm waters, naturally dissipating them over a period of time.
Part 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451 of 1994, defines a
wetland as:
"Land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances does support, wetland vegetation or aquatic life and is
commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh and which is any of the following:
Contiguous to the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, an inland lake or pond, or
a river or stream.
Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or
stream; and more than five acres in size; except this subdivision shall not be
of effect, except for the purpose of inventorying, in counties of less than
100,000 population.
Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or
stream; and five acres or less in size if the department determines that
protection of the area is essential to the preservation of the natural
resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction and the
department has so notified the owner."
The Wetland Act authorizes the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to
preserve certain wetland areas. The MDEQ may require permits before altering regulated wetlands
and may prohibit development in some locations. Among the criteria used by the MDEQ when
conducting a wetland determination are:
Presence of standing water (at least one week of the year).
Presence of hydric soil types that are saturated, flooded, or ponded sufficiently to favor wetland
vegetation (usually black or dark brown in color).
Predominance of wetland vegetation/plant material, or aquatic life, such as cattails, reeds,
willows, dogwood, elderberries, and/or red or silver maple trees.
Presence of important or endangered plant or wild life habitat or a rare ecosystem.
The area serves as an important groundwater recharge.
Size and Location - minimum size to be state regulated is five acres unless the wetland is
contiguous to a lake, pond, river or stream, or is considered to be "essential to the preservation
of natural resources of the state."
The determination that a site contains a regulated wetland can have several consequences:
The MDEQ may issue a permit to fill the wetland.
The MDEQ may require mitigation, such as replacing the wetlands. Sometimes this involves
increasing the overall on-site wetland acreage by two or three times.
26
The MDEQ may prohibit development in the wetland area if it is determined that there is a
"prudent" alternative.
Areas of forested wetland can be found throughout Ionia County in small clusters, as indicated in the
Natural Features Map. Non-forested areas are much sparser, existing only in several locations
throughout the County. Ionia County should continue to take steps to ensure that the wetland areas
identified in the map are perpetually protected by whatever means necessary.
Woodlands
Woodlands are a very valuable natural asset to possess in a community. They provide necessary
functions such as: habitat for many wildlife species, climate moderators, watershed protection from
siltation and soil erosion caused by storm water runoff, wind and noise buffers, as well as aesthetic
and recreational enjoyment. To the extent possible, woodlands should be conserved during all future
land development.
Woodland areas found in Ionia County are shown on the Natural Features Map. As can be
observed, the large majority of woodlands found are deciduous forests, located throughout the
County, yet grouped to a large extent within the flood plains of the County’s river systems.
Coniferous forests are only located in a few areas in the county.
27
Chapter Four
Transportation and Utilities Analysis
This chapter examines the existing transportation and utility systems within Ionia County according
to its capacity to support future development. The ease of access and availability of utilities have a
significant impact on the future growth and development of a community. Even highly attractive
properties can become unappealing when potential owners are faced with a perception of unsafe
traffic conditions or a failed septic system in the area. Ideally, the extension and improvement of
public streets and utilities should precede the demands incurred by increased development. A
compatible relationship should develop between transportation and utility improvements and
changes in land use.
Transportation
Regional and local land use types directly influence the planning and construction of the local
roadway system. Roadways which carry heavy traffic volumes at a high rate of speed need to be
specifically engineered to handle this type of traffic. Roadways carrying light traffic volumes at low
speeds need not be constructed to such stringent standards. Though roads constructed with
concrete curb and gutters may be desirable, the cost may outweigh the benefits in certain areas.
To understand the impact transportation conditions have on future land use decisions, it is necessary
to examine the characteristics of the existing roadway system. This chapter will review the hierarchy
of roads in the County; recent street improvement measures, safety concerns, and recommended
transportation improvement techniques.
Methodology
To analyze the roadway system within Ionia County, Wade-Trim conducted a field survey on July 31st
and August 1st, 2000. The purpose was to record existing road conditions, locate traffic control
devices, and identify safety issues.
An additional source consulted as a part of this analysis include the Ionia County Road Commission
to determine traffic accident locations, traffic count data and possible future road improvements.
Hierarchy
The public transportation system in Ionia County is comprised of two main systems: a roadway and
railway system. The two purposes of roadways within the County are to move traffic and to provide
access to adjacent property. Each road within the County serves both of these purposes to a varying
degree. Roadways are categorized based on their primary function or purpose and then placed in one
of the three tier functional hierarchy: State trunkline, County primary, County local roads.
A Transportation Analysis Map at the conclusion of the chapter indicates the locations of these road
systems found in Ionia County.
State Trunklines
State trunklines are all-season roadways which are designed to transport large volumes of traffic from
one area of the County to another. They also link into the interstate highways which are limited
access and are designed to move large volumes of traffic between neighboring states. The state
trunkline designated roadways that pass through Ionia County are I-96, M-21, M-66, M-50, M-91 and
M-44.
28
The main east-west route, I-96 is an interstate highway which stretches across the State of Michigan
from the City of Muskegon in the west to the urban areas situated just outside of the City of Detroit.
Interchanges from this system within the County are located at Nash Highway, Jordan Lake Road,
M-66, Portland Road/Grand River Avenue, and Kent Street and Grand River Avenue located
adjacent to the City of Portland. The other east-west state trunklines include M-21 located just north
of the Grand River running through the center of the County, M-44 which stretches across the
northwestern portion of the county and terminates at M-66 and M-50 which traverses through
Campbell and Odessa Townships, then from travels southeast from the Village of Lake Odessa
through the remainder of the State. Both of the M-44 and M-21 roadways originate from the City of
Grand Rapids. The only state trunklines travelling a north-south route are M-66 and M-91. M-66
extends from the northern Lake Michigan shoreline in Charlevoix southward through the City of
Ionia to the Michigan/Indiana State border; the M-91 route however travels significantly less
distance from the northern portion of Montcalm County south to its terminus at M-44 in the
northwest portion of Ionia County.
County Primary Roads
County primary roads are those roads which serve longer trips within an urban or rural area,
sometimes extending beyond municipal boundaries to connect to adjacent population centers or
larger arterials. County primary roads collect and distribute traffic between rural residential,
employment and shopping destinations within Ionia County. Most of these roads are traveled more
heavily than the county local roads. Although the majority of county primary roads are paved with a
bituminous surface, several roadway segments remain as gravel surfaced throughout the county.
County primary roads are also classified as either all-season and seasonal. All-season roadways are
constructed to a higher load capacity to compensate for super-saturated (soft) ground lying beneath
the roadway in the spring months; seasonal roads can only bear minimal weights under these
conditions. Typically, from the middle of February to April 1st load restriction are in place limiting
commercial trucks to approximately 25% of their usual weight. The majority of roads designated as
all-season county primary roads in Ionia County are major local road corridors which collect traffic
from the rural and urban areas in the County and connect it to the state trunkline routes. An
example of such a road includes Jordan Lake Road, a north-south corridor connecting the Village of
Lake Odessa and the surrounding area to I-96. Due to the importance of an all-season network to
local commerce, the County Road Commission is planning to expand the all-season road network to
provide such access to all the urban areas in the county.
County Local Roads
County local roads collect and distribute traffic to and from the higher classified systems. The large
majority of county local roads remain unpaved and generally extend along section lines. The paved
local roads that exist are situated adjacent to the urbanized areas in the county.
The McNitt Act of 1931 and PA 51 of 1951 removed township authority over community roads and
required Michigan county road commissions to take over all township public streets and alleys
outside the limits of incorporated cities and villages as either county primary or local roads.
Under the McNitt Act and PA 51, county road commissions are required to maintain primary and
local roads as “reasonably safe and convenient for travel.” This obligation has been construed to
include dust control to prevent traffic hazards, alleviating flooding conditions causing traffic
problems and correcting potholes deep enough to cause loss of control or damage to a vehicle. The
29
Michigan Court of Appeals has further ruled that lack of funds cannot be used by the county road
commission to defend its failure to maintain roads reasonably safe and convenient for travel.
In an increased effort to create a comprehensive strategy for the improvement of roads, Townships
located within the County are encouraged to have a Road Committee and a 5-year Transportation
Plan. The County Road Commission has completed an inventory of local roads and existing
problems to assist the Townships with these plans.
Traffic Counts
Traffic count data for numerous locations within Ionia County have been included upon the
Transportation Analysis map included at the conclusion of this chapter. Said information has been
supplied by the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Ionia County Road Commission,
only the most recent information has been utilized which ranges from 1990 through to 1999. These
counts reflect average daily traffic (ADT). ADT is the average of typical daily traffic on a road
segment for all days of the week, Sunday through Saturday, over a period of one year. The various
types of application for this information are numerous; it may be utilized to assess whether various
road improvements are necessary or analyzed to assess a preferable location for a new commercial
use.
The Transportation Analysis Map depicts traffic volumes at particular points on the roadway through
circular symbols. A graduated sizing technique has been used which uses increasingly larger symbols
to represent various degrees of traffic volume; thus the largest of circles will represent the highest
traffic count range. Not surprisingly, the map shows the roads with the highest volumes (ADT
counts) are the state trunklines, followed by sections of county primary roads between said trunklines
and incorporated areas (i.e. villages, cities).
Safety Issues
Safety issues may be either existing problems or potential problems in the current road system.
Recently, in an effort to improve the safety of pedestrians and motorists the County Road
Commission has installed flashing signals at particular roadway intersections. Additionally, MDOT
has installed flashing stoplights at the Jordan Lake Road and the Nash Highway off ramps from I-96.
However, with the continuation of commercial and residential development in the County and the
associated increases in traffic volume the Ionia County Road Commission has determined that the
prevalent safety issue will be reduced county local road quality due to insufficient funds. The M-66
Corridor Study, completed by Wade-Trim Inc. in 2000, has also recommended future roadway
improvements. Recommended improvements have been organized into three tiers, each based upon
their relative ease of implementation. Tier One improvements are strategies that may be
implemented immediately or that already have been committed through dedicated funding or prior
action. Tier One improvements include mitigating the possibility of excessive curb cuts, as well as
realigning the offset intersection at David Highway and M-66. This intersection currently does not
allow for safe through movements by motorized traffic, which increases the potential for turning
movement conflicts.
County Local Road Quality
It has been indicated by the County Road Commission that significant residential growth is occurring
along unimproved gravel roads. Although increases in traffic volumes warrant improvements to
these county roads, the necessary funds for such improvements are not available. Additionally, many
of these new dwellings are locating within close proximity of river systems due to the areas scenic
30
qualities; however, the necessity of bridges only serves to increase road improvement costs. It is
essential that development within the county be steered towards those areas where adequate services
are already provided thereby decreasing the costs of infrastructure expansion.
Excessive Curb Cuts
Excessive curb cuts result when driveways, created by residential, commercial or industrial uses are
allowed access to a local, collector or minor arterial road in an uncontrolled fashion. This type of
access is very dangerous. It allows vehicles to pull out or stop in too many locations, leaving drivers
to guess what type of maneuver other drivers may attempt within their path of travel.
Recently, significant commercial development has been occurring along the county primary roads
adjacent to the incorporated municipalities, particularly along M-66 adjacent to the City of Ionia. Up
to the present it is believed that commercial uses have constructed curb cuts thereby providing access
to the adjacent roadway in suitable locations. However, as future development locates between
existing uses the construction of additional curbcuts will cause congestion and increased traffic
conflict points. Areas with a strong potential for the construction of excessive curb cuts are
identified upon the Transportation Analysis Map found at the conclusion of this chapter.
Recommended Transportation Improvement Techniques
The M-66 Corridor Study, completed by Wade-Trim Inc. in 2000, has recommended that this safety
issue be mitigated through the use of access management techniques. These techniques involve the
construction of service drives or marginal street access drives, as illustrated in figures G, H and I,
which limit the number of direct ingress and egress points along a major roadway. Future expansion
of strip commercial development along M-66 will create a need to apply the recommended principles
of access management, and will thus provide benefits like improved traffic flow as volumes increase
over time; greater safety in regards to left urn conflicts, and side friction issues.
Access management is defined as “a process that provides or manages access to land development
while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety,
capacity, and speed.4” The goal of access management is to achieve a safe and efficient flow of
traffic along a roadway, while preserving reasonable access to abutting properties.
Six basic principles are outlined in the Improving Driveway & Access Management in Michigan5 handbook,
prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation, to achieve the benefits of access
management. They are:
1. Limit the number of conflict points: When the number of potential conflict points between
turning vehicles increases, so do the opportunities for traffic crashes. Intersections
typically have the most points of potential conflict.
2. Separate conflict points: Traffic conflicts can be reduced by separating conflict points.
Effective ways include establishing minimum distances between intersections and
driveways and establishing corner clearance standards that separate driveways from
critical approach areas of intersections.
3. Separate turning volumes from through movements: Vehicles typically slow before turning.
When turning vehicles are removed from the main flow of traffic, traffic speed is better
4 Michigan
5
Department of Transportation, Improving Driveway & Access Management in Michigan
Michigan Department of Transportation, Improving Driveway & Access Management in Michigan
31
maintained. In addition to maintaining speed, roadway capacity is preserved and
accident potential is reduced. Separate right and left turn lanes, and frontage roads are
access management design tools that serve this purpose.
4. Locate traffic signals to facilitate traffic movement: When a major road has poorly spaced and
uncoordinated signals, traffic safety, road capacity and traffic speed can be severely
hampered. Distances of one-half mile or more between signals are desirable.
5. Maintain a hierarchy of roadways by function: Access management standards consistent with
roadway function protect investments in existing roads, businesses and residential areas.
When a road combines high traffic volumes with too many conflict points, roadway
function and quality decline, along with the ability to safely access abutting properties.
6. Limit direct access on higher speed roads: Access on higher speed roads should be limited to
only signalized intersections or other public streets along the road – rather than at each
abutting property – to preserve the public investment in the road. Consequently, fewer
road widening will be needed. This does not presently apply to Ionia County, but may
become a future concern if the pace of growth continues to accelerate.
The above access management principles should be incorporated in the development review of
major projects. Below figures G, H and I graphically illustrate the usage of shared access drives for
both commercial businesses and residences.
Figure G
Figure H
Figure I
32
Additional Road Improvements
As part of the “Build Michigan III” initiative, MDOT has committed funds for passing relief lanes
on the M-66 corridor between I-96 and the City of Ionia. MDOT is currently studying the corridor
to determine the best location for these road improvements. The location of these lanes will be
based on local input, the M-66 Corridor Study recommendations, environmental concerns, and a
traffic/safety analysis. Passing relief lanes can serve several functions, however they primarily allow
faster moving traffic to pass slower moving traffic on a specified section of roadway.
In 1988, state Economic Development Funds (EDF) became available to construct an all-season
truck network though the County. EDF funds can only be used on the approved all season network
– currently 63 miles countywide. The County Road Commission is proposing that EDF funds be
used to expand the all season road network in the county for the next several years, as opposed to
reconstructing the existing system.
Surface Transportation Funds (STP) are also available to the County to construct roads on the
federal major collector system and to resurface roads on the federal aid system. STP funding can be
used on all roads on the system – over 235 miles countywide. The Board is also proposing to use the
STP funding to upgrade the 22 miles of gravel major collectors to paved roads as opposed to
resurfacing existing paved major collectors.
Following are the prioritized lists detailing the proposed road improvements within the County.
Table 4-1
Economic Development Funds (EDF) Projects
(All Season Construction/Reconstruction)
Road Name and Limits
Keefer Hwy (So Co Line to
Musgrove)
Keefer Hwy (Musgrove to Emery)
Keefer Hwy (Emery to Grand
River)
Grand River (select section not
requiring widening)
Kelsey and Tuttle (Riverside to M66) begin feasibility study in 2001
Morrison Lake Road (Grand River
to Saranac limit)
Hubbardston Road (Nickelplate to
village – village to north county
line)
Keefer Hwy (Grand River to Lyons
village limit)
Miles
2.0
Years
2000
Total Cost
$965,400
Federal/State Share
$772,320
2.0
3.0
2002
2004-05
$600,000
$900,000
$480,000
$720,000
5.5
2003
$550,000
$440,000
3.0
2005-08
$2,000,000
$1,600,000
2.77
2009-10
$1,204,950
$963,960
4.51
2011-14
$1,961,850
$1,569,480
7.03
2015-17
$3,058,050
$2,446,440
Source: Ionia County Road Commission
33
Table 4-2
Surface Transportation Funds (STP) Projects
(Gravel Major Collectors – Construction to Paved)
Road Name and Limits
Riverside Drive (Saranac to west
county line)
Olmstead Road (McKenna to Van
Vleck) & McKenna Road (Hayes to
Olmstead)
Hastings Road (Long Lake to north
county line)
Hock Road (Long Lake to north
county line)
Jackson Road (Clarksville to Bippley)
Miles
Year
Total Cost
4.8
2001
$1,056,000
Federal/State
Share
$844,800
1.52
2002
$334,400
$267,520
.50
2003
$110,000
$88,000
.8
2003
$176,000
$140,800
2.0
After
2003
After
2003
After
2003
After
2003
After
2003
$400,000
$320,000
$600,000
$480,000
$600,000
$480,000
$600,000
$480,000
$700,000
$480,000
Clarksville Road (Jordan Lake to M-66)
3.0
Powell Hwy. (Nickelplate to Woods)
3.01
Nickelplate Road (Hayes to Maple
River)
Portland Road (Nash to west county
line)
3.02
3.5
Source: Ionia County Road Commission
Federal and state funding is made available to the County Road Commission for approved all season
roads and county roads that are considered major collectors. Federal/State funding can cover up to
80% of construction costs for an approved project. The breakdown of available funding is as
follows; EDF - $560,000 annually, and STP - $265,000 annually. Since 1991 over $6.5 million dollars
have been used to make improvements to the Federal aid and the EDF all-season system. Of that
amount, 64% has been spent on the county road system, 35% on the city/village system and 1% for
transit.
Rail Service
The Mid Michigan Railway traverses through the southwest corner of the County, particularly
through Clarksville in Campbell Township and Lake Odessa in Odessa Township. This rail line
traverses west into Kent County where it turns north before re-entering Ionia County. From here it
travels through Ionia County’s northwest corner, particularly Otisco Township and the City of
Belding. This rail line receives the highest volume of traffic within the County. As rail crossings are
the jurisdiction of the County, the Road Commission has completed signage improvements along
this rail line in the past two years.
The other railway within Ionia County, the Grand Trunk Western (G.T.W.) Railway runs through the
County’s center parallel to the Grand River and serves the City of Ionia. In the past, this rail line
forked and continued east of the City, with the G.T.W. line continuing through the center of the
34
County serving the villages of Muir and Pewamo, and the branched line continuing in a southeast
fashion serving the City of Portland. However, these lines east of the City of Ionia have both been
abandoned with right-of-way being sold to interested parties.
Bicycle Paths
City of Portland
Within the City of Portland 3.6 miles of hard surfaced pathway exist, 2.6 miles along the old railroad
right-of-way (R.O.W.) and 1 mile along the Grand River. The City also owns the old railroad R.O.W.
extending west from the City to Lyons Road in Portland Township. Although this R.O.W. is not
paved, the City does trim the vegetation thereby creating a pathway.
City of Ionia
Two bicycle trails have originated from abandoned rail lines adjacent to the City of Ionia, the
Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Railway and the Grand Trunk Western (G.T.W.) Railway. The
northerly rail line (G.T.W.) has officially received the Rails to Trails designation and stretches east of
the City crossing the remainder of Ionia County, past the Villages of Lyons and Pewamo and into
Clinton County. Unfortunately several trees have fallen across the path effectively inhibiting
accessibility. The original ballast surface remains on this trail. The southern bicycle trail along the
old C&O right-of-way from Quarry Road into the City of Ionia has not received such designation.
City of Belding
Although no paths exist at the moment, in the City of Belding two have been planned for future. A
river walk has been identified within the City’s Recreation Plan along the Flat River and a multi-use
path has been along Highway-44 between Hull Street and Highway-91.
Public/Private Air Service
The Ionia County Airport caters to local charter operations, however, at present no scheduled
commercial airlines or charter operators are based at the airport. The airport holds two runways, one
grass and the other hard surfaced. Plans are currently underway to expand the hard surfaced runway
from a length of 3,700 feet to 4,300 feet, the standard length for small jet operations is 4,200 feet.
The purchase of additional property will be necessary to complete these plans. A Master Plan for the
airport has been developed and plans for the creation hangars and facilities for charter operators.
In addition, Greenville Airport is located in Montcalm County to the north, and larger airports exist
both to the west, Kent County International Airport (Grand Rapids) and the east, Capitol City
Airport (Lansing). Both of these are approximately 35 miles from Ionia.
Public Transportation
At present 3 public transportation programs exist within Ionia County. The cities of Ionia and
Belding each have bus services operating within the city limits, and a third program operated by the
Transportation Authority was created in 1988 offering services to the Townships of Ionia, Easton
and Berlin and the Village of Lake Odessa. These services are delivered in a “Dial-a-Ride” manner;
being supplied upon demand and consist of vehicles equipped to assist physically challenged
individuals.
35
In addition, a public transportation program exists for the elderly individuals residing in Ionia
County. This program is also offered as a Dial-a-Ride format and provides door to door service
throughout the county; this program is also co-ordinated with the “meals-on-wheels” program and
various medical services.
The Rural Task Force, comprised of representatives of the road commission, cities and villages under
5,000 population, county transit providers and the Michigan Department of Transportation allocate
ISTEA funds to the public transportation agencies. Agencies may provide said ISTEA funds towards
eligible items including the purchase of new vehicles, facilities, and communications; said funds are
not available for vehicle maintenance.
In 1997 a study regarding the public transportation services in Ionia County was completed. This
study included a comprehensive set of recommendations regarding both the coordination and
consolidation of the public transportation systems. However, any action regarding this document
has been tabled by the County Board of Commissioners.
Utilities
Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems
Water and Sanitary sewer services currently exists within the Villages of Lake Odessa, Saranac,
Pewamo, Clarksville, Lyons and Muir, and the Cities of Ionia, Belding and Portland. However the
majority of the County is not serviced by either public water or sewer and therefore utilizes private
septic systems and private wells. Septic systems must follow the District Health Department
regulations which include a 100 foot setback from all bodies of water for new homes, said regulations
are decreased to a 50 foot setback for existing homes due to the obvious lack of siting options.
Groundwater is found in glacial deposits and is fortunately of good quality in the County.
Village of Lake Odessa & Jordan Lake Area
The Village of Lake Odessa and the Jordan Lake area utilize a sewer system also shared by Woodland
Township located in Barry County to the south. This system is operated by the Lakewood Waste
Authority. Although the wastewater treatment facility is located to the east of the Village on Tupper
Lake Road within Odessa Township, at present no township residents or businesses are served by
the facility. This plant was constructed in 1969 and currently supports 8 storage lagoons of which 5
are settlers. The total capacity of the facility is 289,000,000 gallons.
Water service is contained within these two areas with the exception of a business that is situated
adjacent to the Village of Lake Odessa limits and has purchased water services.
City of Ionia & Ionia, Easton, Berlin, & Orange Townships
The public sewer facility located within the City of Ionia is owned by Ionia Township but operated
by the City. Initially constructed in 1976, the capacity of the facility was doubled in 1992 in order to
provide for neighboring areas, including the expanding prison, and is currently operating at
approximately 50% capacity. This new facility has been constructed in a manner that easily allows
additional expansion thereby doubling present capacity. At present, the City of Ionia, and Easton,
Ionia, Berlin and Orange Townships may utilize this facility. To utilize the facility each of the
aforementioned areas need to purchase the rights to tie into the system, at present, potions of each
township excluding Orange Township utilize this facility.
36
Existing public water service within this area is owned by the City of Ionia. At present, small
portions of Easton, Ionia and Berlin Townships utilize this public water service. Recently water
service infrastructure has been expanded in these areas for future usage by the Townships.
City of Belding
Although public sewer and water service is currently only available within City limits, the City of
Belding and Otisco Township are working on an arrangement to extend water services into the
Township. An expanding industry located west of the City on M-91/Storey Road is requesting the
service. The City’s present policy requires that either all publicly serviced areas be located within the
City limits or that a tax sharing program be utilized (i.e. 425 Agreement). In essence, this agreement
permits the City and Township to share millage from the taxed property which is to receive public
utility service. Sewer service will likely be expanded to the area of M-91/Storey Road as well within
the next 5 years. Another development in the City’s proximity includes a site condominium
development consisting of 22 lots just north of the City limits. Although public services for this
development have not yet been requested, the City would likely work on an agreement to provide
sewer and water service. It is estimated that the City will need to expand their water facility by
constructing another well and water tower within the next 10 years to service the northern portion of
the City.
The Township was originally apprehensive towards the aforementioned 425 Agreement, it is now
perceived as providing benefits to the township which otherwise might not have been accessible.
Perceived benefits to this agreement are increased property values of developed publicly serviced
land, increased millage for the city and township, jobs may be provided by a new development that is
serviced through this agreement, and employees may choose to reside within the township.
Villages of Lyons and Muir
At present all public sewer and water services are contained within both the Villages of Lyons and
Muir. The Village of Muir sells water to Lyons and treats Lyons’ sewage through a 40-year contract
which has 12 years remaining. The Village of Muir is presently processing a proposal to extend
services to a residential development just north of the Village limits for 112 multi-family units and 24
single-family homes. Current capacity of facilities is considered adequate, even with a possible
expansion of serviced area. The Village of Lyons is presently examining the possibility of
constructing their own water and sewage facilities.
Village of Saranac
At present, sewer service is contained within the Village of Saranac’s boundary. Water service
however extends a quarter mile east of the Village providing service to residences and industry along
Main Street/Riverside Drive. Although the Village does not have plans to expand services, no new
expansion of either utility service outside the Village will be constructed as the Council has adopted
policy requiring all service expansion areas outside of Village boundary to be annexed.
Village of Pewamo
Public sewer and water services are contained within the Village of Pewamo’s boundaries. The
Village maintains a seventy-five thousand gallon water tank, which provides ample water supply and
fire protection to current businesses and residents, while allowing for growth. Wastewater is
managed through a treatment system that continues to service the community well. The current
capacity of facilities is approximately 75% and no expansion of services or facilities are planned.
37
Village of Clarksville and Morrison Lake Area
Public sewer service is located in the Village of Clarksville and services portions of both Boston and
Campbell Townships. A sewer authority has been created with representatives from all three
government agencies. However, public water service has not been established within these areas.
Long Lake Area
The area surrounding Long Lake in Orleans Township is currently attaining the appropriate permits
for a public sewer system. This system will not extend outside the general developed area of Long
Lake.
City of Portland
Public sewer and water services are contained almost entirely within the City of Portland. One
exception is a business situated on the northern edge of the City which also stretches into Portland
Township’s jurisdiction. It is serviced with city water and sewer, however said servicing was made
available prior to current City policy requiring a tax sharing agreement. Such agreement might
include annexation or provisions through the Urban Co-operative Act where millage is shared
between the City and Township. Recently an agreement was reached with Portland Township where
development situated south of I-96 was annexed by the City. However, such an agreement was not
reached for the development of a mobile home park (MHP) outside of City, in this case the MHP
will be constructing a private water and septic system. Current capacity of the City’s sewer facility is
adequate to service additional development within or adjacent to the City, however its water facility
will need to be expanded (new water tower and well) upon the servicing of additional development.
Stormwater Drainage
Three primary means are used within the County to manage stormwater these include sewers, open
drainage channels and retention ponds. Although the installation of sewers are considerably more
expensive than either drainage channels or retention ponds this method allows more land area to be
developed.
Drains are created by the dredging and straightening of existing creeks and digging drainage ditches
through natural drainageways or low areas. The purpose for creating county drains and private farm
drains is to improve soil drainage by increasing the flow of water from the landscape. Drainage tile
systems have been buried in most farm fields and improve soil and growing conditions.
At present, Boston Township is the fastest growing township in the county; however, due to the
existence of adequate drainage channels further development within this area should not pose a
drainage problem. However, significant development is also occurring in proximity to the City of
Ionia, particularly to the south of the Grand River. Here adequate drainage does not exist and the
expansion of sewers, channels or ponds will be needed in the area. The expense of constructing
stormwater management methods are covered solely by the individual developing the area, for this
reason said expense may have the effect of limiting development within an area. It should further be
noted that the development of commercial businesses and residential trailer parks have the largest
amount of stormwater runoff due to the inherent large impervious surface areas.
38
It is the duty of the County Drain Commissioner to ensure that all proposed developments provide
adequate drainage thereby negating various potential problems including public health concerns.
Electric & Gas
Gas
Companies providing gas service within Ionia County include Consumers Energy and the Michigan
Consolidated Gas Company. The entire county of Ionia is encompassed within either of these
companies franchise areas. Although the franchise area does not represent presently serviced areas, it
does depict the area to where these companies may easily expand. Although expansion of such
services would create additional cost, these services are only approximately ½ to a ¼ mile from any
area within this boundary.
Electricity
Electrical service is supplied within the County by Consumers Energy, Homeworks Tri-County
Electric Co-operative and the Rural Electric Association (REA). Electrical servicing is similar to gas
with the entire County area being encompassed within the companies franchise areas. In the City of
Portland, electricity is provided within the city and to outlying townships through water turbine and
diesel generation.
Services
Police
Police services throughout the entire county are provided by the Ionia County Sheriff’s Department
and the Michigan State Police (Ionia Post #68). Both of these agencies hold the same level of
jurisdiction within the county and availability is the only determinant in which agency responds to a
request. Although services area provided to all Townships, some have opted to contract the Sheriff’s
Department thereby ensuring a set amount of patrol hours.
Additionally, the Village of Lake Odessa, and the Cities of Portland, Belding and Ionia have separate
local police departments, however the County Sheriff’s Department and the State Police hold
jurisdiction in these areas. With the exception of the City of Belding which has a separate dispatch
office, each of the departments work in conjunction with the Ionia County Central dispatch office.
Fire & Ambulance
Fire
In total, 16 different fire departments offer fire protection services throughout Ionia County.
Generally, each of the Townships within Ionia County are serviced by their respective fire
department. However, in several instances service boundaries differ from the Township boundaries
due to faster response times. An example of this service distribution exists in Danby Township
where the Ronald Fire Department provides service north of the Grand River, the Portland
Department serves the area of the Township south of the river and the Sunfield Fire Department
serves the western portion. Additionally, in particular areas of the County fire services are provided
by a combined Fire Department. For instance, Easton and Ionia Townships are served by the Ionia
Fire Department, and Berlin and Orange Townships are served by a the Berlin/Orange Fire
Department. The Fire Services Map at the conclusion of this chapter depicts these fire service areas
in detail. With the exception of the City of Belding all response signals are transmitted through the
Ionia County’s central dispatch station.
39
Ambulance
Ambulance service is offered Countywide by a total of 6 separate agencies. Similar to fire protection
services, the ambulance service boundaries do not closely follow township boundaries. The largest
service provider within the County is provided by Life Ambulance, this company serves Boston,
Berlin, Easton, Ionia, and Ronald Township in their entirety, and parts of Orleans, North Plains,
Orange and Sebewa Townships.
40
Chapter Five
Housing Profile
An analysis of the County’s housing stock by type, age, value, tenure and other characteristics is
essential in determining the type of new housing which should be built in the County. To a large
extent, it is the characteristics of the existing structures which will determine what can be built and
marketed in the future.
Housing Structural Type
Data in Table 5-1 compares the distribution of year-round housing structures by type in Ionia
County and the State of Michigan in 1980 and 1990. Significant changes have occurred within each
of the housing categories in the County and State during this time period. Within the County singlefamily dwellings and mobile homes have increased by 885 units (6.5 percent) and 1,185 units (69
percent) respectively. State growth statistics for these housing types are more pronounced than the
County with a 9.9 percent increase in single-family dwellings and a 92 percent increase in mobile
home and other dwellings. Conversely, 2-4 unit dwellings have increased in the County, by 7.6
percent, while they have decreased State wide (15.8 percent). This decline in 2-4 unit dwelling is
possibly due to the demolition of homes in conjunction with urban redevelopment. In regard to
dwellings with five or more units, surprisingly the county has experienced a greater percentage
increase than the State during this decade. While the number of these units has increased by 349 or
42.7 percent in the County, the State has increased by only 12.9 percent. The development of such
higher density dwelling units is particularly characteristic of highly urbanized areas.
As the aforementioned statistics illustrate, although single-family homes are the dominant form of
dwelling within both the County and State, manufactured houses are being constructed at a faster
rate. In 1980, one-unit housing structures accounted for 78.9 percent of the total housing stock in
the County, however by 1990 the percentage share has decreased to 73.3 percent. Conversely, in
1980 manufactured homes consisted of 10 percent of the entire housing market, by 1990 its share
has grown to consist of 14.7 percent. As previously mentioned, multiple-family dwellings with 5 or
more units have also increased considerably holding almost 6 percent of the entire housing stock in
1990.
Table 5-1
Total Housing Units Comparison
Ionia County
Units per
Structure
1980
No.
1-unit
13,543
2-4 units
1,105
5 or more
817
units
Manufactured 1,710
homes/other
Total
17,175
1990
Per
cent
78.9
State of Michigan
Change
1980-1990
No.
1980
Per
cent
14,428 73.3
No.
885
Per
No.
Per
No.
cent
cent
6.5 2,551,120 73.9 2,803,767
6.4
4.8
1,189
1,166
6
5.9
84
349
7.6
42.7
317,952
431,774
9.2
12.5
10
2,891
14.7 1,181
69
149,850
100
19,674
100
2,499 14.6 3,450,696
Change
1980-1990
1990
Percent
No.
Percent
72.9
252,647
9.9
267,767
487,552
7.0
12.7
(50,185)
55,778
(15.8)
12.9
4.4
288,840
7.5
138,990
92.8
100
3,847,926
100
397,230
11.5
Sources: 1980 and 1990 US Census, General Population Characteristics
41
Tenure
Nationwide, the rate of home ownership has grown from 55.0 percent of occupied residences in
1950 to 64.2 percent in 1990.6 The County rate of homeownership greatly exceeded the national
level in 1990 with 93.8 percent (see Table 5-2). The State had also exceeded this mark by a
considerable amount with an 88.9 percent homeownership rate.
The vacancy rate of units for sale in Ionia County was 0.7 percent in 1990, while the vacancy rate of
housing units for rent was 0.9 percent. Generally, a “rule of thumb” for desirable vacancy rates is 5.0
percent to permit residents moving into the area a choice of housing immediately available for
occupancy.
Table 5-2
1990 Housing Occupancy Characteristics
Ionia County
State of Michigan
Percent
Percent
Number
Total
Units
Occupied
& Vacant
Units
Number
Occupied Housing
18,447
93.8
100
3,419,331
88.9
100
Owner-Occupied
14,251
72.4
77.3
2,427,643
63.1
71
Renter-Occupied
4,196
21.4
22.7
991,688
25.8
29
1,227
184
132
124
390
40
357
6.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
2.0
0.2
1.8
100
15
10.8
10.1
31.8
3.3
29.0
428,595
76,606
31,589
26,763
223,549
3,072
67,016
11.1
2
0.8
0.7
5.8
0.07
1.7
100
17.9
7.4
6.2
52.2
0.7
15.6
19,674
100.0
3,847,926
100.0
Category
Vacant Units
For Rent
For Sale
Rented or Sold, not occupied
Seasonal
Migrant
Other *
Total Housing Units
Total
Units
Occupied
& Vacant
Units
Data compiled by Wade-Trim.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Michigan, Tables 7, 9 and 11, STF
1A, Table H002, H005
* Other includes boats, railcars, vans, campers
6
Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract
42
Age of Structure
The condition of housing in a
community is related in part to its age.
Traditionally, the need for major repairs
or rehabilitation becomes evident when
housing reaches an age of 50 years.
Communities where a substantial
proportion of the housing stock is 50 or
more years old often initiate programs to
encourage reinvestment in the housing
stock. Table 5-3 depicts age ranges of
housing structures in the County.
Table 5-3
Age of Structure 1990
Ionia County, Michigan
1980 to 1990
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1939 or earlier
Number
2,661
4,455
2,400
1,583
1,140
7,435
Percent
13.5
22.6
12.2
8
5.8
37.8
According to the U.S. Census, 48.4
TOTAL (vacant & occupied)
19,674
100.0
percent of the housing stock in Ionia
County is fairly new, being constructed
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
between 1960 and 1990. However, a
substantial share of the housing stock
(37.8 percent) predates 1939. Coordinated efforts may be required to ensure that these units do not
become substandard.
Housing Value
Housing values and contract rent are good indicators of housing demand and affordability. Census
data is useful for purposes of comparing housing values in the County with a broader region or the
State. According to 1990 Census data, although the County and State hold a similar proportion of
housing stock at the $50,000 to $99,000 category (42.9 and 42.1 percent respectively), the County
consists of a larger proportion of homes valued less than $50,000 (53.6 percent) than the State (39.1
percent). For this reason the State holds a higher proportion of homes valued at more than
$100,000. Likewise, in 1990 the median value of specified owner-occupied homes was $47,900 in the
County, and $60,100 in the State. However, it is expected that the State holds a larger proportion of
high valued homes (more than $100,000) due to the variety of scenic properties available statewide.
Although many scenic areas exist throughout Ionia County and 317 homes are valued at over
$100,000 the quantity of these areas do not compare.
Upon comparing County and State rental prices it is clear that values are much more comparable
than that of owner-occupied units. In 1990, the majority of rental units in the County (59.9 percent)
were priced at $250 to $499 per month, very similar to the State’s share of 56 percent. Additionally,
while 10 percent of the County’s rental units are valued at $500 to $749 per month, 13.4 percent of
the State’s rental units are valued in this category. Finally, the median contract rent price within the
County and State are virtually identical ($341 and $343 per month).
It has been indicated by several local realty companies that in the past several years housing values
have risen steadily. Local realtors estimated that housing values have increased by approximately 45% over the past several years, however, in 1999 values have likely increased by 7%. It was also
indicated that part of the reason why values have risen to a greater degree was due to low vacancy
rates in particular portions of the County. The vacancy rate for areas in fairly high demand, including
areas in proximity to urban centers or scenic areas, are as low as 1-2%.
43
Table 5-4
1990 Comparative Distribution of Housing Values
Financial
Characteristics
Owner-occupied units a
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Median
Renter-occupied units
Less than $250
$250 to $499
$500 to $749
$750 to $999
$1,000 or more
No cash rent
Median contract rent
Ionia County
No.
State of Michigan
Percent
No.
Percent
9,060
4,857
3,886
100
53.6
42.9
1,943,809
760,911
818,833
100
39.1
42.1
252
57
8
2.8
0.6
.1
219,841
78,501
65,723
11.3
4
3.5
47,900
---
60,100
---
3,844
906
2,301
385
27
0
225
100
23.6
59.9
10
0.7
0
5.8
958,983
232,954
536,905
128,873
17,827
8,745
33,679
100
24.3
56
13.4
1.9
1
3.4
341
---
343
---
aSpecified
housing units include only one-family houses on less than 10
acres without a commercial establishment or medical office on the
property.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
New Housing Units
Building permit information supplied by the Ionia County Building Department provides an updated
snapshot at growth and building trends within each of the Townships in the County. Below, Table
5-5 provides a detailed display of building permit information between 1995 and June-2000, while
Figures J and K graphically depict the number of building permits that have been issued for the
construction of both single-family dwellings and manufactured homes over the same period.
Over this 5-year period, a total of 1,206 permits have been issued for single-family homes in the
County. Boston Township’s contribution towards this total is significantly larger than any other
township with 206; other large contributor’s were Danby Township at 105 and Portland Township at
95. Each of the other Townships were grouped rather closely together in this regard with the
exceptions of North Plains, Orange Ronald and Sebawa Townships. The number of building
permits issued for single-family homes has been relatively level over this 5-year period, with a slight
increase in 1998 and 1999.
44
Comparatively, the construction of manufactured homes in the County was only slightly less over
this 5-year period with 1,002 building permits issued. However, the location of manufactured home
construction within the County differs dramatically from single-family homes. Ionia Township has
supplied the vast majority of manufactured homes in the County with 229 units. Five other
Townships which have experienced similar levels of manufactured home construction are Easton
(105), Orleans (97), Boston (94), Lyons (86), and Ronald (80). The number of building permits
issued for manufactured homes has been relatively level over this 5-year period.
Between 1995 and 2000, very few building permits have been issued for 2-unit or multiple-family
unit buildings. The only Township to have issued a building permit for a 2-unit duplex has been
Boston Township issuing two permits in 1994 and one permit in 1995. The only permit issued for a
multiple-family building (3 or more units) was Portland Township in 2000 for a 5-unit complex.
Figure J
Single-Family Homes (1995-2000)
250
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
200
Building
Permits
150
100
Sbewa
Ronald
Otisco
Portland
Orleans
Odessa
Orange
Lyons
North Plains
Ionia
Keene
Danby
Easton
Campbell
Berlin
0
Boston
50
Township
Figure K
Manufactured Homes (1995-2000)
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
250
200
150
Building Permits
100
Sbewa
Ronald
Otisco
Portland
Orleans
Odessa
Orange
Lyons
North Plains
Ionia
Keene
Danby
Easton
Campbell
Berlin
0
Boston
50
Township
45
Table 5-5
Housing Unit Building Permits
Townships
1995
Berlin
Boston
Campbell
Danby
Easton
Ionia
Keene
Lyons
North Plains
Odessa
Orange
Orleans
Otisco
Portland
Ronald
Sebewa
Total
7
35
13
16
14
18
3
9
2
12
4
16
15
9
9
4
186
Single-Family Homes
Manufactured Homes
S.F. & Man. Total
1996 1997 1998 1999 June Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 June total
2000
2000
15
13
8
14
7
64
4
5
5
6
4
4
28
92
31
33
49
40
18 206
16
12
20
23
13
10
94
300
12
8
11
19
8
71
12
6
5
8
7
7
45
116
12
14
22
26
15 105
6
6
12
6
7
6
43
148
15
9
10
20
12
80
12
22
22
24
17
8 105
185
14
16
14
14
5
81
42
39
36
50
41
21 229
310
16
7
24
15
5
70
5
8
10
2
3
2
30
100
16
17
18
14
3
77
32
13
9
14
11
7
86
163
6
5
5
6
2
26
6
6
10
3
7
3
35
61
18
15
16
13
7
81
4
0
5
6
7
2
24
105
4
8
3
3
0
22
1
2
1
2
7
0
13
35
14
11
14
7
7
69
19
16
14
21
18
9
97
166
22
11
13
14
11
86
6
8
15
10
0
4
43
129
15
17
25
18
11
95
1
7
7
1
8
3
27
122
8
6
8
8
8
47
19
13
18
13
8
9
80
127
4
6
5
5
2
26
4
4
2
6
5
2
23
49
222 196 245 236
121 1206 189 167 191 195 163
97 1002
2208
Source: Ionia County Building Department
46
Chapter Six
Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Before the County can actively plan for its future growth and development, it must first set certain
goals and objectives that define the boundaries of its needs and aspirations and, thus, establish a basis
of Master Plan formulation. These goals and objectives must reflect the desires of the community
and the kind of lifestyle its residents wish to follow, given realistic economic and social constraints.
The following sets forth goals which describe the ultimate purpose or intent of the Ionia County
Master Plan, as well as objectives to help the County achieve those goals. Strategy statements are
also provided to guide the future review of development proposals.
Formulation Process
The process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for the Ionia County Master Plan involved
three specific types of public involvement, encompassing numerous public forums. These
opportunities were created to accurately identify the prevalent issues and concerns as perceived by
residents throughout the County. Public participation opportunities that have shaped this chapter of
the Master Plan include the following:
Citizen Opinion Survey - completed by Michigan State University on behalf of the County Planning
Commission.
Community Input Forum Meetings - a series of 10 meetings on particular issues, hosted by the
County Planning Commission.
Goal-setting Workshops - a series of 5 meetings were hosted by the Planning Commission to
identify prioritized “strengths” and “challenges” within the County as defined by the
participants.
Public Review of Draft Goals, Objectives and Strategies – Upon the completion of the draft Goals
Chapter of the Master Plan, a public meeting was used to allow residents to provide additional
comment.
Each of the public participation steps that have been undertaken in the planning process will be
further detailed below. Additionally, background information pertaining to the County’s existing
land use, natural features, transportation and utilities and housing characteristics (as outlined is
previous chapters of this Master Plan) has also been carefully considered in the creation of goals,
objectives and strategies.
The following provides a summary of the development process as well as the adopted goals.
Background Studies
Over the course of several meetings through autumn and winter of 2000-2001, the County Planning
Commission reviewed background studies including socio-economics, natural features, housing,
existing land use, utilities and transportation within the Ionia County area. These studies offered a
“snapshot” of the community and of the residents who live here. These studies are used to assess
future trends in population and the local economy, anticipated housing need, potential weaknesses in
local infrastructure, as well as the identification of environmentally sensitive land. For these reasons
the background studies are an invaluable information source that have been utilized in the
development of a set of goals for the County. These studies are included in the previous chapters in
this Plan.
47
Citizen Opinion Survey
In the spring of 2000, a countywide land use and planning survey was completed by Michigan State
University for the Ionia County Planning Commission. The goal of this research was to seek the
opinions of county residents on a variety of issues involving land-use, planning, economic
development and recreation use. The result of this research is based on 736 surveys returned
completed from an initial random sample of 1,820 cases.7
Community Input Forum Meetings
During the months of September and October of 2000, the County Planning Commission hosted a
series of 10 community input meetings. These forums were advertised throughout the County and
open to the public. They were designed
to gain input from the community on
various specific issue areas, including
agriculture, housing, education, public
safety, local government, business and
industry, natural resources, recreation and
quality of life. Members of the Michigan State University Extension office facilitated the community
input forums. The presence of this agency helped to ensure that a non-biased approach to this
forum was used and that all voices were heard. Members from Wade-Trim, Inc., the planning
consulting firm hired to assist in the development of the Ionia County Master Plan, were also present
at these meetings. However, their only capacity was to record those issues identified and carefully
note citizen concerns.
Some of the prevalent issues from these meetings included the following:

Land fragmentation and fractionalization (the loss of contiguous parcels of agricultural land) is
proving to make farming more difficult.

Policies need to be created thereby addressing the large number of old unoccupied mobile
homes throughout the County.

Industrial uses should be planned and directed to areas within the County with the capacity to
service them.

Land use policy needs to consider the quality of the natural features affected.
A detailed summary report identifying the findings from these meetings is included in Appendix A of
this Plan.
Goal-setting Workshop
During the months of February and March of 2001, the County Planning Commission hosted a
series of five goal-setting workshops. These workshops were open to the public and held in various
locations throughout the County to provide convenience to residents. The purpose of these
workshops was to involve the public in defining and prioritizing key strengths and challenges within
7
Ionia County Land-Use Study: Planning For Our Future – Ionia County Study Results. 2000
48
the County through the use of a Nominal Group Technique. Advertisements for this workshop
were included in local newspapers and posted around the County to generate community-wide
interest and attendance. Participants were first asked to identify issues from a personal perspective
and then as part of a small group. Subsequently, each of the groups shared their priorities with the
entire audience, finally, each
Figure L Advertisement for Visioning Workshops
individual voted for the three
issues in both categories that
they believed most important,
starting with number one as
the highest priority.
Responses from each of the
meetings were tabulated in
order to identify which issues
residents deemed most
important. In tabulating
responses, those responses
receiving a number three
rating were given a one value,
while a number one rating
received a three value. A
rating of two was equal to a two value. At the completion of this five meeting series, each of the
meeting results were compiled into a master list by grouping identical issues. This compilation allows
observers to identify which issues (strengths and challenges) were viewed as most important by the
participants. Several of these prevalent issues are as follows:
Strengths
The goal-setting participants voted as the greatest strength of Ionia County its location between
the Lansing and Grand Rapids urban centers, and the transportation system that connects it to
the surrounding area.
Agricultural land received the second highest vote tally through this process.
Challenges
The most prevalent issues during the goal-setting workshop series related to the lack of planning
within the County and the need for planning regulations.
Deteriorating transportation and quality of roads was viewed as the second largest challenge for
the future of Ionia County.
A detailed summary report of the findings from these meetings is included in the appendices of this
Plan.
Review of Draft Goals – Public Meeting
At this meeting, held on September 17, 2001, the public was presented with the draft Goals chapter
of the Master Plan. Time was provided for public input of the presented materials. Planning
Commissioners served as facilitators and recorded comments made by citizens. Those comments
were then reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated into this document.
49
Action Plan
The result of the formulation steps, summarized above, is the basis of the action plan. Below, goals
are identified, each of which have objectives, or means for attaining the goal, and specific strategies
to guide action on the objectives. Although Ionia County did not have an adopted zoning ordinance
during the time of this Master Plan update, some of the particular strategies that have been identified
below do refer to zoning. These have been included due to the possibility of the County
implementing a Zoning Ordinance in the future, and also due to the fact that several Townships
throughout the County presently have or intend to implement zoning. These particular goals will
therefore prove valuable in serving as a guide in these circumstances.
County Goals
The County Planning Commission adopts the following goals to guide future development in the
area and to enhance the quiet, scenic and rural character of the County as a whole.
It is the goal of the Ionia County Planning Commission to:
Help to ensure the long-term viability of the agricultural industry while protecting the
development rights of the farming community.
Create an optimum living environment for both the present and future residents of the
community that will work to solve their physical needs, offer variety and choice, and minimize
nuisance effects.
Protect environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater
recharge areas from the impacts of developments that may tend to be incompatible with the
natural environment.
Guide new development in a manner that conserves natural features and environmentally
sensitive areas and meets the needs of the community both today and through the next twenty
years.
Continue to actively involve the public in the decision - making process.
Guide future growth and development in a manner that respects the County’s rural atmosphere.
Balance the rate of land development with the availability of public facilities and services such as
roads and utilities. Encourage more compact developments near the established “urbanized “
areas of the County.
Promote cooperation with other governmental units within and adjacent to Ionia County
through joint meetings and shared awareness of proposed development areas.
Promote quality economic development that will benefit the long-term needs of the County.
Balance the rights of the individual property owner with the needs of the public interest.
The goals of the Planning Commission can be achieved if the community adheres to the following
objectives and related strategies regarding environmental features, residential, commercial and
industrial land uses, community facilities and infrastructure.
50
Objectives and Strategies Related to Environmental Features
Objectives
Maintain the County’s scenic and rural character by minimizing the impacts of development on
environmental features such as wetlands, woodlands, scenic views (including open space areas)
and the overall watershed area.
Protect the quality of surface and groundwater resources in the community from development
related impacts.
Protect residents and property from the hazards often associated with inappropriate
development infringing on natural systems.
Strategies
Encourage the maintenance of natural buffers around inland waterbodies, wetlands, and other
sensitive environmental systems.
Work with neighboring communities to develop and implement a watershed management plan.
Encourage the use of cluster design and open space development to conserve scenic views,
wetland areas, woodlands, groundwater recharge areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Encourage the preservation of unique and/or natural features, including native animal habitats.
Encourage the inclusion of parks, bicycle, pedestrian and natural landscape linkages in
conjunction with new and established developments.
Ensure that all county, state and federal environmental regulations are adhered to in the
development of land.
Seek state and federal assistance in funding operations aimed at environmental protection, such
as abandoned well sealing.
Establish limitations on the use of paving materials for private land development to reduce
storm water runoff and to improve water quality.
Undertake a Wellhead Management and Contingency Plan to assist in the implementation of
proper planning techniques thereby protecting the County’s water system from contaminants.
Develop site plan review requirements that serve to protect the natural environment.
51
Objectives and Strategies Related to Agricultural Lands
Objectives
Facilitate the preservation of viable farmlands from conversion to and encroachment of nonagricultural uses.
Minimize conflicts between farm and non-farm uses in active agricultural areas.
Balance the needs of the agricultural community with the interests of the non-farm residents.
Recognize the need for balance between the agricultural community and the environment.
Discourage the fragmentation of productive farmland.
Require the establishment of transitional uses and/or landscape screening between agricultural
and commercial, residential, and industrial land uses.
Strategies
Participate in programs that will provide economic incentive to retain agricultural lands (for
example but not limited to the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR)).
Work with county farmers and agriculture agencies to identify prime agricultural lands in Ionia
County.
Encourage the retention of productive agricultural and forestlands through available mechanisms
such as open space and farmland agreements, forest stewardship programs, and conservation
easements, as well as local zoning incentives.
Adopt coordinated provisions which provide adequate buffers between agricultural and adjacent
land uses to protect the future viability of the farmlands.
Encourage the use and implementation of both federal and state programs to strengthen efforts
to preserve and enhance the agricultural base in the County.
While creating or deliberating changes to zoning boundaries, it should be determined that the
change would not be at the expense of viable agriculture.
Encourage the use of cluster designs and planned unit developments to conserve agricultural
lands and the inherent open space.
Develop site plan review requirements that serve to enhance the rural character of the County.
Discourage a pattern of scattered rural housing development on overly large lots, particularly in
areas of productive agricultural lands.
52
Objectives and Strategies Related to Residential Land Use
Objectives
Provide for a range of residential types (i.e. size, affordability) to meet the needs of the
community’s diverse population.
Encourage the development of residential neighborhoods, which are well integrated into the
existing landscape and complement the character of existing neighborhoods and/or residential
development.
Encourage the preservation and incorporation of topography, open space and other natural
features into the design of new residential developments to minimize adverse impacts on the
environment.
Minimize the adverse impacts created by new residential development upon the transportation
network.
Strategies
Encourage the interspersing of various housing types (such as apartments, single-family, and
condominiums) by using Planned Unit Development programs, thereby blending socioeconomic
groups.
Create and implement policy/programs encouraging the removal of non-inhabited/condemned
structures or buildings from private property and refuse from public areas.
Require the establishment of transitional uses and/or landscape screening between residential
commercial, agricultural, industrial or open space land uses.
Develop site plan review requirements that will serve to encourage shared access drives and
minimize the hazards of excessive curb cuts.
Require new housing developments to utilize densities that appropriately relate to natural and
manmade features.
Consider the impact new developments will have on the area’s ecosystem as part of the site plan
review process.
Draft and adopt development review processes that include informing the school districts of
potential residential developments in the County.
Encourage new residential developments to be sited in a manner that protects the community’s
traditional and rural character and scenic views by maintaining proper setbacks and providing
landscaping screening as appropriate.
Discourage a pattern of scattered rural housing development on overly large lots, particularly in
areas of productive agricultural lands.
53
Require the layout of new residential developments to be logical extensions of existing
neighborhoods, where possible. This shall apply to lot layout, road extensions, and open space
plans.
Encourage higher density housing on lands that have or are planned to have the capacity to
support such development by means of adequate public roads and other available infrastructure.
Encourage cluster housing and other creative forms of development to permit higher density
housing while protecting the community’s rural character and balancing the needs of the
agricultural community with the interests of the non-farm residents and property owners.
Encourage new residential developments to incorporate a pedestrian sidewalk system that
ultimately connects with abutting developments to produce a walkable and connected
community.
Objectives and Strategies Related to Commercial Land Use
Objectives
Provide reasonable opportunities for the establishment of commercial uses that meet the market
needs of area residents.
Ensure that the structural scale, landscaping, and signage, and other elements associated with
commercial establishments is compatible with the community’s traditional and rural character.
Minimize any adverse impacts which new commercial developments might impose upon the
County’s transportation system and the environment.
Strategies
Develop site plan review requirements that will serve to encourage shared access drives and
Recognize and continue to promote downtown revitalization including streetscape and
properties within any established business center to serve both the local consumer population
and subregional market base.
Encourage planned, orderly commercial development with attention to traffic issues, appropriate
signage, pedestrian safety and convenience of shoppers.
Develop signage regulations for highway oriented businesses to control both location and size.
Where possible, incorporate service roads into site planning to eliminate the need to access a
major highway in order to visit a neighboring business.
Develop specific site plan review standards for home-based businesses to help preserve the
character of existing residential areas.
Encourage reuse of older buildings, brownfield areas, and underutilized properties within
existing business areas as an alternate to new construction.
54
Review commercial architectural and landscape designs to ensure that such uses are carefully
integrated into the community’s landscape.
Require the establishment of transitional uses and/or landscape screening between commercial
and residential, industrial, agricultural, or open space land uses.
Develop site standards for major transportation routes that will help mitigate use conflicts
between commercial and non-commercial.
Objectives and Strategies Related to Industrial Land Use
Objectives
Ensure that the structural scale, landscaping, signage and other elements associated with
industrial development does not infringe upon the County’s rural character.
Minimize any adverse impacts which new industrial developments might impose.
Ensure a stronger, resilient industrial base by promoting industrial diversity.
Strategies
Coordinate efforts with the Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan State University’s Extension
Office, and other interested agencies to foster ownership in the processing of raw agricultural
materials.
Develop site plan review requirements which will serve to encourage shared access drives and
Encourage community efforts to develop appropriate areas for certified industrial parks.
Direct industrial development to locations which are not environmentally sensitive areas or do
not require substantial changes to natural systems.
Require the establishment of transitional uses and/or landscape screening between industrial and
residential, commercial, agricultural, or open space land uses.
Incorporate a series of comprehensive site standards, including but not limited to location of
buildings and green space buffers, governing industrial uses outside of established industrial
parks.
Encourage reuse of older buildings, brownfield areas, and underutilized properties within
existing business areas as an alternate to new construction, utilizing tools such as those provided
to a Brownfield Redevelopment Authority.
When siting any future industrial lands, consider the impacts the development would have on
city/county services.
Encourage the use and implementation of programs encouraging redevelopment and new
investment in urban areas.
55
Objectives and Strategies Related to Public/Semi Public Lands
Objective
Provide for public and semi-public uses in locations appropriate for their development and
utilization.
Strategies
Provide public park and recreation facilities and encourage private community facilities which are
suitable to their user population in terms of size, character, function, and location.
Develop a County Park and Recreation Master Plan to guide, enhance and coordinate future
activities and facilities.
Encourage citizen participation to determine needed and desired improvements and expansions
to public facilities and recreation.
Assist and guide semi-public and citizen groups in their efforts to provide needed community
facilities.
Maximize the utilization of public buildings and grounds for multi-functional services.
Objectives and Strategies Related to Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Objective
Provide for the effective and efficient location of public facilities and delivery of public and
private services.
Increase the level of public safety adjacent to roadways by implementing appropriate
development review standards.
Strategies
Work with the Road Commission, MDOT and local municipalities to improve the quality of
infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, water, sewer) in order to accommodate efficient usage by
residents and businesses, and foster increased development (i.e. commercial, industrial,
residential) within particular areas of the County.
Incorporate adequate signage and clear vision areas into land use policy and local land use
reviews to increase safety on and adjacent to roadways.
Encourage the use of access management guidelines and coordinated development review along
highway corridors to promote safe and quality development.
Plan, locate, and provide areas for publicly provided facilities based on a long-range general plan,
short-range project plans, and capital improvements programming.
Work cooperatively to facilitate the improvement or construction of public facilities, such as
roads and public safety.
56
Require that adequate public infrastructure be installed concurrently with or prior to the
initiation of any new commercial, industrial, and/or moderate density residential land
development.
Provide sidewalks and bike lanes in the developing areas, especially the planned residential areas,
to create safe, non-motorized options for citizens.
Objectives and Strategies Related to Quality of Life Issues
Objectives
Undertake endeavors to develop future leaders in the County.
Continue to foster a sense of community through public involvement and information programs.
Encourage a clean/litter-free rural environment throughout the County.
Be prepared for natural and man-made disasters.
Strategies
Coordinate planning efforts amongst Townships within the County, encompassing those that
may or may not have already implemented planning and/or zoning tools.
Implement policy/programs encouraging the removal of non-inhabited/condemned structures
or buildings from private property and refuse from public areas.
Support an emergency preparedness program within the County.
Develop and maintain a Watershed Management Program.
Promote involvement in land use related educational opportunities.
Promote community pride through planned activities geared toward cleanup and property
improvement (e.g. Adopt a Highway and community tree planting programs).
Continue to actively involve the public in the decision – making process.
Commit to maintaining a safe, family oriented community by supporting the various emergency
services and crime prevention programs.
Participate in inter-jurisdictional planning efforts to assure the representation of residents in
regional decision-making.
Summary
The proposals detailed above for Ionia County and the local government divisions are guidelines for
future development. If the planning program is to be more than a confusion of varied opinions, then
it is essential that these goals and objectives be seriously considered by all governmental agencies
present within the County. These statements are suggested as a starting point for officials. As the
planning process progresses, the goals, objectives, and strategies may be altered and new ones
57
formed. Therefore, these recommendations are flexible and need constant attention. It is
recommended that the goals, objectives, and strategies be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
58
Chapter Seven
Future Land Use
The Future Land Use Plan identifies the desired pattern of land development in Ionia County for a
period extending approximately 20 years. This chapter describes the basis for the plan, the
formulation process and the intended character of each land use classification. A future land use plan
is general in nature. Boundaries between land use classifications are not intended to be parcel specific
or related to property lines. In addition, a future land use plan is a flexible document. It does not
prescribe specific land uses for legally described property; rather, it describes a desirable pattern of
future development within Ionia County.
Basis for the Plan
The following Future Land Use Plan is intended to facilitate a future development pattern in Ionia
County that preserves and enhances the integrity of the compact form found within the cities and
villages, while conserving non-renewable resource land and protecting the rural character found in
the outlying countryside. It is based upon the principles of growth management and the community’s
desire to relate land use primarily to the natural characteristics of the land and the long-term needs of
the community, rather than to short-term, private economic gain.
The preferred land use framework supports concentrated urban development in areas that are
presently served by public utilities or that are within reasonable reach given the anticipated amount of
new residential construction. It also provides for the development of rural residential communities
in areas with suitable soils. As stated in the Natural Features Analysis, soil types in Ionia County,
particularly the central Townships, are well suited for crops and pasture. These soils also provide a
good base for building sites and roads.
Future intensive development is directed away from hydric soils, which require special engineering
and design consideration. As referenced in the Natural Features Analysis, hydric soils tend to be
found in proximity to lowland drainage courses: particularly along the Grand, Flat, Looking Glass
and Maple Rivers or in woodland areas.
It is the intent of this Plan to:
Help to ensure the long-term viability of the agricultural industry while protecting the
development rights of the farming community.
Create an optimum living environment for both the present and future residents of the
community that will work to solve their physical needs, offer variety and choice, and minimize
nuisance effects.
Protect environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater
recharge areas from the impacts of developments that may tend to be incompatible with the
natural environment.
Guide new development in a manner that conserves natural features and environmentally
sensitive areas and meets the needs of the community both today and through the next twenty
years.
Continue to actively involve the public in the decision - making process.
59
Guide future growth and development in a manner that respects the County’s rural atmosphere.
Balance the rate of land development with the availability of public facilities and services such as
roads and utilities. Encourage more compact developments near the established “urbanized “
areas of the County.
Promote cooperation with other governmental units within and adjacent to Ionia County
through joint meetings and shared awareness of proposed development areas.
Promote quality economic development that will benefit the long-term needs of the County.
Balance the rights of the individual property owner with the needs of the public interest.
Formulation Process
To assist the City and Townships in the development of a future land use map, four (4) draft
alternative maps were prepared. It was the intent of these alternatives to provide the Planning
Commission with a tool to more easily assess the countywide potential for future land use categories.
A summary of the four (4) alternatives follows:
•
Utilities Based Alternative
This future land use design alternative was created to demonstrate how the county would develop if the availability
of public utilities were the prime consideration. Given that utilities are generally found only in the cities and
villages, the growth under this scenario would be limited to areas adjacent to and within the urbanized areas.
•
Natural Features Based Alternative
This future land use alternative was generated by studying the environmental constraints to development, including
hydric soils, steep slopes, woodlands and wetlands. Under this alternative, more intense developments would be
directed away from these areas toward areas with fewer constraints.
•
Continuing Trends Alternative
This future land use alternative attempts to represent the pattern of growth in Ionia County if the following
scenarios took place: 1) no growth management coordination occurred between the three communities, and 2)
current development trends were left to continue in the future.
•
Growth Management Alternative
The growth management alternative was intended to facilitate a future development pattern in Ionia County that
would preserve and enhance the integrity of the compact form found in the City while conserving valuable resource
land and protecting the rural character found in the outlying countryside. This land use framework supported
60
concentrated urban development in areas that are near existing centers of the county. It also provided for the
development of rural residential communities in areas with suitable soils.
This scenario also considered the plans adopted by townships with independent planning and zoning programs
underway or established.
In addition to the four (4) growth alternatives, the Future Land Use Plan evolved from a close
examination of existing conditions described in the background studies and through consideration of
the aspirations expressed by the community as summarized in the goals and objectives report.
The primary factors shaping the planned development pattern are the carrying capacity of soils,
presence of natural features, proximity to existing public utilities, population growth patterns and
access to regional transportation routes. Steep slopes also present development concerns such as an
increased probability for erosion. Special consideration should be given to conserving these areas
through the application of open space development design principles. This approach encourages the
use of cluster design in site planning, which directs development to areas with low conservation value
and stable soils with the balance permanently set aside for natural or continued agricultural use.
Land within Ionia County has been planned for one of thirteen types of uses. The future land use
distribution is summarized in the following table.
Table 7-1
Future Land Use
Distribution Summary
Land Use Category
Agricultural
Suburban Residential
Urban Trend
Public/DNR/State Land.
Commercial
Wellhead Protection Overlay (Not
counted in total land use)
Environmental Buffer Overlay (Not
counted in total land use)
Mobile Home Park
Total
Acres
289,114
67,258
974
10,875
2182
Percent of Total
78.0
18.1
0.04
3.0
0.1
18,400
N/A
47,479
N/A
1,010
371,413
0.06
100.0
Open Space Conservation
To provide the basis for a zoning program that allows flexibility in residential development, this Plan
recommends the use of average development densities as a means of describing the recommended
development intensity at different locations within Ionia County. Reference to “development
density” means the density that results by dividing the total acreage of an area by the number of
61
dwelling units planned for that area—it does not mean a uniform minimum lot size. Thus, a
landowner that has twenty acres could have a number of development options where a development
density of one dwelling unit per two acres is recommended by this Plan and so regulated by the
Zoning Ordinance. For example, the landowner could elect to develop ten, two-acre lots, or ten,
half-acre lots with ten acres reserved as open space, or an attached single-family or multiple-family
development with a greater open space reservation.
Recommended standards for open space set aside according to natural resource type are found in the
following table.
Figure M
Recommended Open Space Ratios by Natural Resource Type
Resource
Open Space Ratio
Floodplains (FEMA-recognized)
100%
Woodlands
40%
Wetlands located in environmentally
1
sensitive areas and other designated
preservation areas
70%
Lakes or Ponds
100%
Watercourses and Streams
100%
Wetlands
100%
Lake or Pond Shorelines
Wetland Margin
2
3
70%
80%
Environmentally Sensitive Area: A natural area including 100-year floodplains and floodplain
soils; lake, pond and wetland margins; or other sensitive areas such as sites with significant
natural features.
1
Lake and Pond Shore Margins: The landside edge of lakes and ponds from established shoreline
to an upland boundary. For planning purposes, it is recommended in this Plan that 100 feet be
the standard minimum width of a lake or pond shore margin.
2
Wetland Margin: The transitional area between the wetland boundary and the upland
boundary. For planning purposes, 100 feet or the limit of hydric soils (whichever is shorter) is
recommended as the standard minimum of a wetland margin.
3
Source:
Village Planning Handbook, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Planning Commission
Future Land Use Categories
Agricultural
The Agricultural category generally
includes land that is being used as
cropland or orchards and is outside
62
the urbanized area of influence. Agriculture should remain the predominant use in these areas.
However, non-farm uses may be considered acceptable if designed to conform to the rural
atmosphere found in the surrounding area. To this end, it is recommended that the agricultural lands
in the County be divided into two (2) zoning classes: Primary Agriculture and Secondary Agriculture.
The purpose of this recommendation is to acknowledge that certain farmlands in the County will be
transitioning to non-farm uses over the next twenty years. These areas will provide housing
opportunities for the County as well as provide a buffering region for active farming operations.
Summarily, the differences are:

Primary Agriculture will identify those lands which should remain in farming for the foreseeable
future. Uses unrelated to the agricultural community should not be encouraged and land
divisions for housing should be kept to a minimum with open space provisions included. Nonfarm commercial or industrial uses should not be permitted.

Secondary Agriculture should apply to those areas that will preferably remain in farming but
could experience some transition to non-farm uses. Developments in this areas should
incorporate open space into the developments and make use of planned unit development
(PUD) regulations or other site design tools whenever possible. Planned unit development
regulations allow for the developer and the county to work together to design site plans that
preserve the rural character while offering a variety on dwelling types and lot sizes. Non-farm
commercial uses should be introduced into secondary agricultural areas only when in
conjunction with a PUD. Industrial uses should not be permitted.
Site design of non-agricultural developments in any agricultural setting should draw upon the bulk,
styling and proportions of the area’s rural character wherever possible. There are various zoning
techniques that are being implemented nationwide to assist in the protection of farmland from
encroachment by development. Following are techniques that should be considered to implement
the goals and objectives stated in the Ionia County Master Plan.
Sliding scale and quarter/quarter zoning allow the preservation of some of the land but require the
continuation of farming on the remainder, preserving much of its productive capacity. Sliding scale
zoning establishes the number of non-agricultural building sites permitted based on the total size of
the parent parcel. For example, a 20-acre parent parcel may be
permitted two building sites while a 350-acre parent parcel may be
In a 2000 Ionia County Land
Use Study survey, 83% of
permitted seven building sites. If, in the future, the property owner
respondents county wide
decides to develop the remaining acreage, an established amount of open
indicated that farmland
space must be
preservation was a moderate to
included. The
high priority for them. In the
following
same survey, 70% of
60% open
illustration shows
space reservation
respondents stated that the rural
how the sliding
character of Ionia County was a
very important reason to live in
scale method could
the County
be used on a 40-acre
.
parcel.
40% buildable area
40-Acre Parent
Parcel
(two-acre or greater
minimum lot size)
(4) two-acre
parcels
63
With the four 2 acre parcels already split from the property, 12.8 acres would remain available for
development (assuming a 60/40 open space agreement).
The actual development density, however, would reflect the entire 32 acres. For example, if a density
of one unit per 2 acres is used, the developer would be allowed to plan 16 units. The sliding scale
approach works best in areas with a wide range of parcel sizes.
Quarter/quarter zoning permits one residential non-agricultural building site per 40 acres of
farmland. Once the lot is recorded, the landowner is entitled to no further non-farm development.
This approach has been most successful in areas with large farming operations and where the average
parcel size exceeds 40 acres.
Large lot zoning is the most widely used farmland protection technique. It establishes a large
minimum lot size, usually 10 acres or more, for non-agricultural residential development. The theory
in this technique is that large minimum lot sizes discourage non-farm residences because purchase
prices are higher than smaller lots. Over time, the large lot zoning technique has generally proven
unsuccessful because the lot size is still too small and/or the relative cost difference is not great
enough compared to smaller lots with access to public utilities. Many believe that this technique has
encouraged the unnecessary and premature conversion of thousands of acres of Michigan farmland,
because people are forced to buy more acreage than they would have preferred. This technique is
not recommended to protect farmland unless the minimum lot size is very large (40 acres or more).
Although the predominant land use within this category should be agriculture, flexibility should be
exercised to accommodate other uses if properly harmonized with the surrounding environment.
The County should develop a set of performance standards that demand sensitivity to rural design
and impact on environmental features. In addition, to address the special needs of the family
farmers, two-family housing should be permitted under certain conditions.
Uses that may blend in with the agricultural community include value-added industries such as
woodworking and finish carpentry. In addition, any industry related to agriculture such as dairies,
farm produce auctions and stockyards should be considered for compatibility within the Agricultural
land use area. Other non-farm uses that may be considered compatible include tourist oriented
businesses, kennels and veterinary facilities, noncommercial wind energy and conversion systems, etc.
Permitting uses such as those identified above will assist Ionia County’s goal to preserve farmland
and open space because it allows farmers the option of a second income, thus permitting them to
continue farming in all economies.
Suburban Residential
The Suburban Residential category is
intended to provide for the development of
rural residential communities that include
planned open space areas, as seen in the
cluster development example below, that will
aid in the transition between the agricultural
portions of the Townships and the central
development area. Planned Residential
Developments (PRD), PUDs and site
condominiums are recommended in these
64
areas as methods of preserving the rural character of the County.
Lands in this classification will allow for subdivisions and lot sizes which are generally more compact
than the secondary agricultural classification. Moreover, this land use classification generally avoids
soils that pose significant residential development constraints.
Generally acceptable land uses include residential development and other community-oriented uses
such as day care and adult foster care facilities and churches, as well as public and private recreation
facilities. Home-based businesses may also be permitted under limited conditions. Building sites of
less than one (1) acre are preferred if
Cluster Residential Development
open space conservation objectives are
met.
Home-based businesses and other nonresidential land uses should be carefully
regulated in this area to prevent negative
impacts on residential neighborhoods.
Environmental Buffer Overlay
Development along the County’s rivers
and wetlands poses many environmental
concerns such as water pollution from
yard chemicals and on-site septic
systems, shoreline erosion and sedimentation. Though the land area contained within this
classification exhibits varying development patterns (very small platted lots; long, narrow lots;
suburban subdivision lots; large acreage parcels and some commercial and urban development), the
impact of development on water quality
is a shared concern that needs to be
addressed through long-range planning.
The County has identified these
sensitive areas through the use of an
overlay classification. With this method,
underlying land use classifications aid in
determining uses and densities, but the
overlay indicates that the area is in need
of special site plan and development
considerations. Among these
considerations are shoreline buffers,
deeper setback limits and the need for
additional site specific studies during site
plan review.
Generally acceptable land uses in the Environmental Buffer Overlay area include agricultural and
farming practices that do not negatively impact the water quality, low density single-family dwellings
and public and private recreation facilities. New residential development within these areas should be
restricted to an average development density of one (1) dwelling units per four (4) acres. Future
development should be planned in consideration of the natural and aesthetic environment.
Minimizing impervious surface area, establishing shoreline buffers and setback areas, instituting
65
regular septic system inspections, and limiting the application of landscape chemicals are suggested
mechanisms for conserving the quality of Ionia County’s inland waters.
Urban Trend
The Urban Trend area describes the blend
of uses which exist in several areas of the
County, for example M-66 south and Grand
River Ave. west of Portland. These areas
provide opportunities for in-fill medium to
high-density housing, including multi-family
developments, and certain industrial and
general commercial uses which are not
otherwise found in the County.
In the Orange Township Master Plan, the
area of south M-66 in this category is a mix
of Planned Unit Development, industrial
and residential uses. This classification encompasses that mix of uses. Care should be taken that these
areas not be allowed to sprawl into neighboring suburban residential or agricultural areas.
It is important that new Urban Trend developments are well designed and include design
characteristics such as:
• Adequate distance between structures within the development;
• Appropriate height limitations;
• Served with open space and utilities;
• Access only to paved streets;
• Safe and efficient egress and ingress designed to minimize congestion and interference with
normal traffic flow;
• Adequate drainage;
• Appropriate greenbelts when a non-residential development adjoins any single-family residential
District.
Mobile Home Park
The purpose of mobile home parks is to
encourage a suitable environment for persons and
families who, by preference or affordability,
choose to live in a mobile home rather than a
conventional stick-built structure. The Mobile
Home Park land use classification includes, and is
generally limited to, land area currently occupied
by, and expected to remain, mobile home parks.
The limited amount of public sewer and water
66
facilities and other infrastructure outside of the cities and villages serves to limit the amount of area
suitable for mobile home parks. No additional land, other than expansion of existing parks, is
planned for future mobile home park development because of the existence of approximately nine
(9) parks in the county (outside of those in cities and villages), which provide sufficient opportunities
for mobile home living.
In keeping with the occupancy characteristics of contemporary mobile homes, low-density standards
in parks should be encouraged. Development within this land use category is limited to mobile
homes when located in a subdivision designed for that purpose or a mobile home park with
recreational facilities, churches, schools and necessary public utility buildings also permitted.
It is recommended that the County have the Michigan Mobile Home Commission review zoning
ordinances related to mobile home parks to assure compliance with state laws and help defend the
County against future litigation.
General Commercial
General Commercial uses typically serve the local and regional market, are automobile-oriented, and
benefit from highway visibility and accessibility. Because General Commercial uses generate large
volumes of traffic and require large parcels, these areas are primarily planned for major highway
interchanges and along M66 south of Ionia. Outdoor
display and storage of
goods is also a common
characteristic of uses in
this land use classification,
although design standards
should be developed to
manage the intensity,
location and environmental impact of such displays.
Generally acceptable uses in the General Commercial area include large retail centers, gas stations
and service areas which cater to interstate trucking, warehouse outlets, home and garden
improvement centers, building material yards, furniture and appliance stores, boat, recreational
vehicle and motor vehicle sales, supermarkets, standard and fast-food restaurants, hotels and motels
and mini-storage facilities. While some industrial uses may be permitted in these areas, heavy
industrial uses, such as found in licensed industrial parks, should not be permitted to develop or
expand within the General Commercial Areas.
General Commercial uses are planned to develop as an extension of the existing strip development
pattern along M-66 south as well major interchange areas. Shared access, landscape screening, and
parking located to the side or rear of buildings should be encouraged.
Public and Semi-Public
This category reflects the locations of the
existing major public and semi-public uses in
Ionia County. These uses are generally areas
67
in public ownership or non-taxable property, such as state parks and prison properties. Smaller
public uses such as schools and township halls are not identified on the Future Land Use Map as
they are compatible with and should be allowed in a number of other land use categories. Public and
semi-public uses may be appropriate in all use areas if designed to fit into the established character of
the surrounding area.
68
Chapter Eight
Implementation Plan
In order for the Master Plan to serve as an effective guide for continuing quality development in
Ionia County, it must be contentiously implemented. Primary responsibility for implementing the
Plan rests with the Planning Commission, County Board of Commissioners and staff. This is done
through a number of methods including zoning ordinances, educational programs and administrative
procedures which are described in this chapter.
It is important to note again that the Master Plan itself has no legal authority to regulate development
in order to implement the recommendations of the Plan. This implementation must come from the
decisions of the county officials, including the Planning Commission, to provide needed public
improvements and to administer and establish regulatory measures relative for the use of the land.
The relationship between land use planning and zoning is an important one. Planning is basically the
act of planning the uses of land within a community for the future, while zoning is the act of
regulating the use of these lands by ordinance. The laws of the State of Michigan require that a
community engage in land use planning activities, including the preparation of a comprehensive plan
prior to the initiation of a zoning ordinance in a community.
The differences between planning and zoning are further noted in the following table:
Table 8-1
Differences Between Planning & Zoning
MASTER PLAN
ZONING ORDINANCE
Provides general policies for the County.
(e.g. attract new businesses to County and
provide a mixture of housing).
Sets forth zoning regulations – the law. (e.g. notes
locations where commercial uses are prohibited,
stores must be setback 50 feet from the street rightof-way, maximum sign is 60 square feet)
Flexible, written to be able to respond to
changing conditions.
Rigid, requiring formal amendment and details of
how to administer
Provides a background on the community,
issues, goals, the citizen survey and
potential actions.
Deals just with physical development and how to
administrate the zoning ordinance.
Enacted under the County Planning Act
(Public Act 282 of 1945)
Enacted under the County Zoning Act, public Act
183 of 1943 as amended.
Adopted by the Planning Commission
unless the County Board of
Commissioners chooses, by resolution, to
be the adopting body.
Adopted by the County Board of Commissioners
unless the County Board of Commissioners
chooses, by resolution, to be the adopting body.
Changes can be made by the Planning
Commission.
Changes made by the County Board. Appeals and
variances are decided by the Board of Appeals.
69
The private sector, including individual home and land owners, is also involved in fulfilling the
recommendations of the Master Plan by the actual physical development of land uses and through
the rezoning of land. The authority for this, however, comes from the local government.
Cooperation between the public and private sectors is therefore important in successful
implementation of the Master Plan.
Previous elements of the Plan sets forth Goals, Objectives and Strategies, as well as Land Use Plan
recommendations, which serve to guide the future development of Ionia County. Many of the
specific implementation recommendations of this chapter are taken from these statements.
The following sections are a list of the major activities, which the Planning Commission should
pursue in order to be aggressive in the implementation of this Master Plan.
Zoning
Ionia County does not currently have zoning. Zoning represents a legal means for Ionia County to
regulate private property to achieve orderly land use relationships. It is the process most commonly
used to implement community Master Plans. The zoning program documents consist of an official
zoning map and zoning ordinance text.
The official zoning map divides the community into different zones or districts within which certain
uses are permitted and others are not. The zoning ordinance text notes the uses which are permitted
and establishes regulations to control densities, height, bulk, setbacks, lot sizes and accessory uses.
Upon an application for the rezoning of a land parcel, it is extremely important to the success of this
Plan that the Planning Commission review the Future Land Use Map and also carefully study the
goals and intent of the existing/proposed land use categories before making any land use decisions.
While the map may provide a guide, the detailed recommendations are to be found in the text.
The zoning ordinance also sets forth procedures for special approval regulations and sign controls.
These measures permit Ionia County to control the quality as well as the type of development.
No zoning request which is inconsistent with this Plan should be considered without first making an
amendment to the Plan.
Suggested standards for considering rezoning include the following:

Would the rezoning be consistent with the future land use map?

Would the rezoning be consistent with the goals of the Plan?

Are all of the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the proposed zoning district compatible
with adjacent uses and zoning? (i.e., not just the "intended use," if there is one)

Is there reason to believe that the property owner could not obtain a reasonable return on their
investment with the current zoning? (this does not mean maximum profit, only reasonable)

Can the existing infrastructure and services support all the uses under the proposed zoning?
70
A "yes" response to all the above suggests that the rezoning be approved. A "no" response to more
than one suggest that the current zoning should be retained.
Planning Commission Work Program
This Plan recommends that the Planning Commission prepare a work program in January of each
year. This work program would set forth the tasks or goals which the Planning Commission
determines necessary to accomplish in the upcoming year. This will allow the Commission to stay
focused on important tasks and help to implement the goals and objectives identified with this Plan.
Planning Education
Planning Commissioners should attend planning seminars to keep themselves informed of planning
issues and learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as Planning Commissioners.
These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan Society of Planning, the Michigan Township
Association and other organizations and are a valuable resource for the Planning Commission.
There are also several planning publications, which are a useful information tool for Planning
Commissioners. The main publications are Planning and Zoning News, Michigan Planner Magazine and
Planning Magazine.
Revisions to the Master Plan
This Master Plan was adopted and enacted under the statutory requirements of the County Planning
Act, PA 282 of 1945 prior to the year 2001 amendments to that act. As a result, amendments to this
plan will need to be undertaken with a procedure slightly different than that used to adopt this plan.
It is now mandated that this plan be updated every five (5) years and that the public review period for
amendments be extended to forty (40) days. It is also now possible for the final adoption of the
county plan (or any amendments thereof) to be the responsibility of the County Board of
Commissioners instead of the Planning Commission. The County Board will take this responsibility
through the adoption of a resolution stating their intent to be the adopting body of the plan. The
responsibility for the development of the plan and the public hearing will remain with the Planning
Commission.
71
Appendices
A.
Public Participation
B.
Media
C.
City and Township Future Land Use Maps
D.
Public Hearing Legal Notice and Meeting Minutes
E.
Adoption Resolution
72
A.
Public Participation
73
B.
Media
74
C.
City and Township Future Land Use Maps
75
D.
Public Hearing Legal Notice and Minutes of Hearing
76
E.
Adoption Resolution
77