To the Editor:

After reading the most recent letters to the editor (12/20/07) from Greg Malcho and David Wallace, we can't sit idly by while they falsely interpret our local Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the wishes of our Les Cheneaux community.

Mr. Malcho asks that we "protect the very nature of the Les Cheneaux area from this type of development" and "reject the attack."

In our opinion, the very nature of the Les Cheneaux area is large, unique boathouses and antique wooden boats. As owners of waterfront property on Hessel Point and Marquette Island with a working non-commercial wooden boat restoration and maintenance shop attached to our boathouse on Hessel Point, we feel this boathouse project and berthing the Canim here are totally in keeping with the existing uses of Hessel Point shoreline and a welcome asset to the community. The only attacks we have witnessed, both in print and at the recent public hearing, have come from a small but vocal minority that includes Mr. Malcho. In fact, we don't recall having heard or seen a year-around resident who objects to this boathouse project, with the exception of one letter to the Planning Commission objecting on the basis of size and location.

Mr. Wallace calls the boathouse commercial, charges that there was "considerable objection" to it, and says the Shore Strip District is a "cornerstone" of the ordinance, "intended to keep the waterfront in its natural state as much as practical," and he wants to "preserve the wonderful and unique character of the Les Cheneaux area."

Firstly, the proposed boathouse is not commercial. The Zoning Ordinance states clearly that use and not the ownership determines whether it is commercial.

Secondly, a special land use permit would violate nothing in the ordinance. Special land uses are permitted, and the only criteria cited in granting them are "particular nature" and "certain circumstances." There are no height or size limitations unless stipulated by the permit when granted. In fact, the baseline stipulated in the ordinance of 600 sq. ft. relates to the fact that there are many 50 foot platted lots in the township.

When Mark was on the Planning Commission, it negotiated with the MDNR over size limitations relative to bottomlands leasing and the rule of thumb was that everyone has the right to a "2 car garage," so 1,200 sq. feet on a 100 foot lot became the norm for a boathouse, too.

Thirdly, the "considerable opposition," at least in the correspondence the township received, amounted to 31 letters opposed, of which seven were from Loreli residents and their attorneys and six were from the Malcho/Collins families. The overwhelming majority of letters (49) were in favor of the boathouse project. This is not to understate the concerns brought out, for some are these are valid and warrant consideration. However, we believe there are remedies that could have been investigated if the Planning Commission hadn't rushed to reject the original special land use permit application.

Fourthly, the Shore Strip District as a "cornerstone" argument is not only false, but warrants a little history. Mark was chair of the Planning Commission when a public meeting was held to discuss updating the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance to better balance waterfront development and the contact person when the RFPs went out in the fall of 1992 to revise the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission had outlined three possible waterfront districts for the township: Commercial Waterfront, Residential Waterfront, and Resort Waterfront. The current Shore Strip District, along a small portion of the Hessel waterfront, is the watered down version that resulted from the successful lobbying efforts of a Cedarville resort owner opposed to any waterfront development restrictions. Such was the political climate then. (Planning Commission to Update Master Plan, Review Zoning, Weekly Wave, 9/9/1991)

Lastly, how is one to define "wonderful" and "unique character"? In Mark's life experience here over the last 52 summers, and as a yeararound and voting resident since 1974, and Pennie being a life-long resident, some of our most wonderful times have been cruising in and watching antique wooden boats. Providing a home port here for the Canim would continue a 100-plus year legacy of motor yachts in the area. Earlier in our lifetimes there were a dozen or more large motor yachts, many with full time captains, and, until recently, the Vagabond Lady with her own boat house off the end of Hessel Point on St. Ledger Island.

The most "unique characteristics" of the Les Cheneaux Islands, in our estimations, are the large and unique boat houses that dot the shorelines, the "Dance Hall" and "Dining Hall" boat houses on nearby Long Island being wonderful examples. The proposed boat house project for the Canim is certainly in keeping with the long and historic tradition of boats, boating, and boat houses here.

As we read through all the correspondence the township received on this issue, we were most struck by Mr. Wallace's own comments and those of his attorney's. As for blocking views, neither sunsets or the angle of view are stipulated in the ordinance. Here are some sample statements:

"Township Ordinance which mandates zero development on the shore strip" is just not true. The Shore Strip District allows for structures that are "auxiliary to the use of the lake." Wouldn't a boathouse qualify? (10/31/2007 letter to Planning Commission from Mr. Wallace)

Having a "dry dock that could only be for the purpose of a commercial enterprise." We have had a "dry dock" for over seven years now since the water went down, and no one that we are aware of considers our boat shop to be commercial. (11/6/2007 letter from Mr. Wallace's attorney John Danieleski, Jr.)

"… the owner of the property … is a commercial enterprise." The Ordinance passage cited that defines boat house refers to "privately owned boat(s)," not property ownership at all. (11/6/2007 letter from Mr. Wallace's attorney John Danieleski, Jr.)

While it is true that the ordinance does not specifically authorize permits based on economic impact or job creation, neither does it preclude the Planning Commission from including them in the decision process. The public hearing was full of comments that had no relationship to the specifics of the Zoning Ordinance, and were allowed. When Mark questioned the lack of direction or boundaries at the meeting, the chairperson replied that this was only an "information gathering meeting." Based on this, he assumed that the Planning Commission would table a decision and take these public comments into consideration as they studied the proposal further. (11/6/2007 letter from Mr. Wallace's attorney John Danieleski, Jr.)

The "legal mandate to deny" has no basis in fact, as noted previously. Special land uses are permitted, and the only criteria cited in granting them are "particular nature" and "certain circumstances." Thus far there have been only two requests and no "crime" committed. Even the slander put forth about the dredging last fall has been proven false. (11/6/2007 letter from Mr. Wallace's attorney John Danieleski, Jr.) (11/8/2007 letter from Dan Carmichael)

Our Ordinance calls for the inclusion of an "accurate sketch" to be included with applications and nowhere asks for "certified architectural plans." In this case, we feel that when and if this project goes further that it would be appropriate to ask for and keep detailed drawings on file at the township office. (11/6/2007 letter from Mr. Wallace's attorney John Danieleski, Jr.)

Mr. Wallace's assertion in his letter of 10/31/07 that "the negative impact of the proposed boathouse is far beyond comprehension, it is almost impossible to address it intelligently," pretty well documents his efforts in these matters.

The only valid assertion worth debating that we have heard regards the potential for a lack of "stewardship" on the part of the Kosters, in part due to experiences with Bruce Glupker, such as his letter of 8/15/94 (attached to Mr. Wallace's other attorney, L. William Smith's letter of 11/2/07) urging "extreme caution" in granting the Wallaces a special land use permit. Two wrongs do not make a right, and in the spirit of Christmas we encourage those that are making this personal to become part of the solution and look for ways to accommodate the Canim in our community with the least negative impact possible.

There are legal ways for the Planning Commission to set limitations and penalties on this proposed project, not to mention searching for alternative locations if suitable compromises aren't reached on lot 55. We would both be comfortable seeing the applicant's signature at the bottom of a list of possible stipulations, along with specific and enforceable penalties for infraction, rather than to look a gift horse in the mouth and run from this tremendous opportunity.

Mark and Pennie Clymer

Hessel