Forest Home Township

Survey Results

I. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS

The first set of questions in the survey dealt with perceived problems in ForestHome Township. Twenty-three questions focused on the general issues of lakes; township image; roads and traffic congestion; economic factors; housing; and growth issues.

A. LAKES

Access to lakes and shorelines is generally not perceived to be a problem by nearly two-thirds of the respondents. There is less of a distinction regarding over crowding of boats and lake shore development.

These responses need to be examined more closely because there are significant differences in the responses to these questions depending on whether the property owner are riparian or non-riparian; or year-round or seasonal residents.

1. Lake Access

§ Riparian Vs. Non-Riparian Property Owners
There is a major difference of opinion as to whether there is a lack of access to lakes. Only 11% of riparian property owners see lack of lake access as a problem while 62% of non-riparian property owners do. Conversely, 82% of riparian property owners say lake access is not a problem for township residents while nearly 26% of non-riparian property owners say it is not a problem. More non-riparian property owners are undecided on this issue.

§ Residency of Land Owners
A comparison of responses to this question was made between year-round residents and seasonal residents. There is also a substantial difference of opinion among these two groups. while nearly 40% of property owners responding to this question are seasonal residents, nearly three-fourths of that group (161) said lack of lake access is not a problem. Only 18% of seasonal residents see a problem with lack of lake access.

This opinion differs sharply from the views held by year-round residents who are more evenly split on the question. Over a third (116) of yearround residents indicated that they think there is a problem. Over half

(170) do not see a problem, however, there is a larger number of year-round residents who are undecided about this issue than seasonal residents.

2. Overcrowding of Boats

Generally, there appears to be a high degree of agreement among groups within the total population on the question of overcrowding of boats on inland lakes. Approximately 45% of property owners see boat density as a problem while an additional 20% are more uncertain.

3. Intensity of Lake Shore Development

There is general agreement among groups on the question of whether or not there is excessive lake shore development. Nearly 60% of property owners see it as a problem while an additional 17% are uncertain. Only 25% of property owners clearly see intensity of lake shore development as not a problem. There is a high confidence level that this question would be consistently answered with similar results.

B. IMAGE

1. Prevalence of junk

Over half the property owners see the prevalence of junk as a problem while 29% do not. Riparian property owners and retirees are less tolerant of junk than other groups. These may be the same people. Approximately 60% of riparian property owners and retirees see junk as a problem. Less than half of non- riparian land owners and employed people see junk as a problem.

There is a fairly consistent view among year round residents and seasonal residents on this question with over half seeing junk as a problem and another 16% uncertain.

2. Billboards and Roadside Image

These issues are less clear-cut. Only 25% of property owners think billboards are a problem. However, deteriorating roadside image may be cause for concern. Over 60% of respondents either think there is a problem or are undecided.

C. TRANSPORTATION

This issue was generally not seen as a problem. Traffic congestion is not seen as a significant problem. Road disrepair garnered the most dissatisfaction with over 45% of property owners agreeing that roads are a problem. Over 60% either see roads as a problem or are undecided.

Residential Zoning Too Restrictive

	A Problem	Undecided	Not a Problem
Groups	%	%	%
Riparian Prop. Owners	13.0	20.5	66.5
Non-Riparian Prop. Owners	14.3	24.9	60.8
Yr-Round Residents	15.1	18.3	66.3
Seasonal Residents	10.1	26.2	63.6
Employed	13.5	28.8	57.7
Self Employed	15.1	17.9	67.0
Retired	12.9	18.7	68.1

Table l

2. Affordable and Elderly Housing

Lack of elderly housing is seen as a problem by over a third of property owners, although, lack of affordable housing or multiple family housing in general are not seen as problems.

Over half the respondents over 80 years old feel elderly housing is a problem. There is not clear agreement on this issue among property owners who responded. A lot of uncertainty appears to be in evidence.

Lack of affordable housing is seen as more of a problem among non-riparian property owners and year-round residents, although, seasonal residents' response indicates that a large number are also uncertain on this question.

F. GROWTH

This set of questions dealt with loss of farmland, loss of rural character, suburban sprawl, strip development, and rapid growth. Generally there seems to be widespread agreement among groups on these issues.

1. Farmland Loss

There is high correlation in this question between riparian and non-riparian property owners with nearly 45% of both groups viewing loss of farmland as a problem. Thirty percent of both groups do not see it as a problem. Approximately 25% of both groups are somewhat undecided. The response to this question is also consistent among year round residents and seasonal residents.

A question was asked whether property owners preferred encouragement of growth; limited, controlled growth; no growth; or to let growth take its own course. The responses to the growth question are summarized in the table below.

Method of Growth Preferred

Groups	Growth Encouraged %	Limited, Controlled %	No Growth %	Take Own Course %
Year-round Residents	9.2	57.7	8.9	24.1
Seasonal Residents	2.7	64.3	14.0	19.0
Riparian Property Owners	3.7	64.2	12.4	19.7
Non-Riparian Property Owners	10.3	56.7	6.7	26.3
Employed	6.8	65.0	10.9	17.3
Self Employed	6.7	49.0	13.5	30.8
Retired	5.9	63.1	8.6	22.4
Voters	8.3	59.4	8.9	23.3
Non-Voters	4.1	63.5	13.1	19.2
Total of all Property Owners	6.5	61.2	10.5	21.8

Table 2

Year-round, non-riparian and self-employed property owners appear to be most willing to let growth take its own course, however, there yet remains a clear preference among all groups that the township continue its policy of controlling growth through various growth management tools at its disposal. (Assuming that zoning in Forest Home Township represents "policy").

III. MOBILE HOMES ISSUES

Mobile Homes is a controversial issue. It appears relatively safe to conclude that mobile homes are not favored by township residents. There is little support across all groups for increasing the amount of land made available for mobile homes.

· Land Allocation

Non-riparian property owners are significantly more supportive of mobile home housing with nearly 40% of the group indicating they prefer about the same amount of land allocated for mobile homes. They are also the least likely group to indicate that less land should be allocated for mobile homes (49%) contrasting with riparian property owners, 74% of whom said that less land should be allocated.

· Preferred Location

Most property owners prefer mobile homes be located either in parks or in designated districts. Riparian property owners indicate a strong preference for parks while non-riparian property owners are more diverse in their opinions on this issue.

This question generated many comments most of which are not favorable to mobile homes. There is significant recognition in the comments that mobile homes provide a more economical housing alternative and there are a few comments indicating that property owners should have the choice with varying requirements for safety and appearance.

Table 3 below summarizes the various responses by different groups.

Mobile Homes

	Land Allocation %			Preferred Locations %
	More	Same	Less		Desig.	All
Groups	Land	Amount	Land	Parks	Districts	Districts	Other
Yr.-Round Residents	10.6	29.8	59.6	52.9	28.5	13.8	4.8
Seasonal Residents	1.8	23.5	*74.7*	60.7	28.1	4.9	6.3
All Residents	6.7	28.3	65.0	55.3	29.0	10.0	5.8
Riparian Property Owners	3.7	22.2	74.1	62.1	25.3	6.4	6.1
Non-Ripar Proprty Owners	12.0	38.8	49.3	43.6	35.0	15.9	5.5
All Prop. Owners	6.8	28.4	64.8	55.1	29.0	10.0	5.9

Table 3

IV. LAND ALLOCATION

A survey question dealt with property owners' opinions about allocating more land for various uses: residential, commercial, industrial, resource development and recreational.

Based on written comments, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the term "allocate". The term appears to be perceived by some as a threat to property owners' ability to make private ownership decisions. The term is interpreted by one respondent as being, "Socialist in political philosophy."

One respondent said he did not wish to tell other property owners how to utilize their land, and then adds, "of course, there should be some controls so that the individual's use of his/her land does not adversely affect his neighbor." That comment captures the difficulty in officials' dilemma in trying to lawfully balance individual ownership rights with broader public interest.

A. RESIDENTIAL

Mobile homes issues have been discussed in section UL Property owners

generally agree that there is adequate allocation of land for duplexes,

apartments or condominium units, and seasonal or vacation homes. They feel

that the same amount of land or less land should be allocated for those types of

residential uses.

Over 60% of property owners said that current levels of allocation for single family homes is adequate. Over 50% said the same for senior housing, however, over 40% see a need for more senior housing.

Table 4 summarizes the senior housing question by residency and riparian vs. non-riparian groups.

Land Allocation - Senior Housing

Groups	More Land	Same Amount	Less Land
	%	%	%
Year-Round Residents	48.6	45.6	5.8
Seasonal Residents	32.3	58.2	9.5
All Residents	42.0	50.9	7.1

Riparian Prop. Owners	33.0	58.2	8.8
Non-Riparian Prop Owners	56.9	38.9	4.2
All Prop. Owners	42.1	50.9	7.0

Table 4

B. COMMERCIAL

There is little support for allocating more land to commercial uses. More than two-thirds of property owners said that current allocations of land to overnight lodging establishments and office and service uses are about right. There appears to be general agreement that less land should be allocated to highway strip commercial, discount and outlet malls, or large regional shopping centers. Thus, it might be concluded that property owners in Forest Home Township don't appear to value these commercial uses of land.

There appears to be clear consensus that heavy manufacturing is not desired in the township. Similarly, there appears to be little support for more land to be allocated for storage and wholesale facilities.

Most support (23%) was evident for allocating more land to light industrial uses, while nearly 60% of respondents feel current levels are about right. There is significantly more support for expanding land allocations for light industry among year-round residents and non-riparian property owners.

Table 5 below summarizes the difference by grouping property owners into different categories.

Land Allocation - Light Industrial

Groups	More Land - %	Same Amount - %	Less Land - %
Yr-Round Residents Seasonal Residents All Residents	26.5 16.7 23.3	56.9 62.8 58.0	16.6 20.5 18.7

Riparian Prop Owners Non-Riparian Prop Owners All Residents	20.1 28.3 23.2	60.5 53.9 57.9	19.5 17.8 18.8

Employed Self Employed Retired All Employ. Categories, except unemployed	26.6 18.3 22.0 23.2	54.6 59.6 60.4 58.1	18.8 22.1 17.6 18.7

The greatest support by property owners surfaced for allocating more land to park lands and forest lands. There is two-thirds agreement that commercial agriculture is at about the right level, although, a fairly significant percentage (47%) feel that more land should be allocated for open space. Studies have shown that people often value ag land for its open space value and the rural character it provides -- not necessarily because commercial agriculture is valued as an economic activity. It is possible that this is the situation among Forest Home Township property owners.

Table 6 below summarizes the opinions of landowners regarding land allocation for park lands.

Land Allocation - Park lands

Groups	More Land - %	Same Amount - %	Less Land - %
Yr-Round Residents Seasonal Residents All Residents	48.6 55.8 52.4	44.7 39.2 41.9	6.6 5.1 5.7

Riparian Prop Owners Non-Riparian Prop Owners All Prop. Owners	49.3 59.2 53.1	44.2 37.2 41.5	6.5 3.7 5.4

Table 6

E. RECREATION

The only recreational uses for which greater allocation of land are significantly supported by Forest Home property owners are for bicycle paths (62%) and quiet and low impact sports areas (47%).

Fifty-seven to 66% of property owners feel that present land use allocations to golf courses, riding stables, and horseback riding trails are adequate. Noteworthy, however, is that over 30% of property owners feel that less land should be allocated to golf courses.

There appears to be little support among property owners for allocating more land to off-road vehicle trails or shooting ranges.

V. DESIRABLE QUALITIES OF THE TOWNSHIP

There is almost unanimous agreement among property owners that desirable qualities of the township include clean air and water, scenic views of open space and water, and lack of crime. There is also strong agreement that maintaining farmland, forest land, rural image, and recreational opportunities are either very important or somewhat important.

A clear majority of property owners also highly value the other qualities of the township, i.e., sense of community; informal lifestyle; slower pace of life; and locally owned family businesses. To a lesser extent, though still a majority, of property owners value small population; small town atmosphere; little industry; and in-home businesses.

All of the above factors contribute significantly to the attraction Forest Home Township has to its property owners.

VI. IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING NATURAL OR AESTHETIC RESOURCES

Generally, the responses to this group of issues are consistent with property owners' recognition of the township's desirable qualities noted in Section V.

There is overwhelming agreement among property owners that resource protection measures are important. Property owners show strongest agreement in the areas of protecting: lakes and streams water quality; groundwater quality; and scenic views. To a somewhat lesser extent, protecting wildlife habitat; forest land; rural character; and farm and orchard land are also considered important

The natural resource area with least strong agreement relates to wetland protection, however, yet nearly 70% of property owners indicated that wetland protection is very important

Comments in this section are varied. Two comments emphasize loon habitat. Some bias was expressed against commercial forestry practices. One person noted that wetland should be distinguished between "real wetland and mud puddles." Several comments addressed boat speed, excessive horsepower, boat noise, and jet ski activity concerns.

One person said, "don't abuse the lake property owners. You're ruining all future development." Another noted that, "Intelligent and effective zoning restrictions will help." That comment was offset by, "The less government -- THE BETTER."

There appears to be general support among property owners for strict local regulations to protect land. There is also noticeable support to require open space in new developments, and for stronger enforcement of local ordinances.

There is much less agreement among property owners over such land protection measures as: purchase of land; special millage; or other taxes earmarked for development rights purchases.

A cross-tabulation of various groups relative to three land protection measures was done, i.e., stricter local regulations, requiring more open space in new developments, and stronger enforcement of local ordinances.

A. Require Open Space in New Development

There is stronger agreement among seasonal residents than among year-round residents for requiring more open space in new developments. Among all residents, nearly 80% either "strongly agree" or "agree" that requiring open space in new developments is a good land protection measure. Approximately the same percentage of riparian and non-riparian property owners are "undecided" on this issue.

B. Stronger Enforcement of Local Ordinances

Over 70% of all groups support stronger enforcement of local ordinances as a local protection measure.

C. Stricter Local Regulations

There are slight differences between year-round residents compared to seasonal residents' intensity of agreement relative to stricter local regulation. However, over 60% either "agree" or "strongly agree" with the need for stricter regulation as a land protection measure.

The most notable difference between riparian and non-riparian property owners is in "undecided." However, there are yet over 60% of both groups who agree that stricter local regulations are a good land protection measure.

In summary, there is greatest support for requiring more open space in new developments as a land protection measure, followed by stronger enforcement of local ordinances and developing stricter local regulations. There are not significant differences among different groups of property owners relative to this issue.

Comments in this section of the survey were more frequently antigovernment and anti-taxation. This seems to indicate more of a preference for using existing land protection tools without imposing new taxes to pay for them.

The role of conservancies was noted relative to development rights easements or land purchases. There may not be a clear understanding of development rights easements since it is a land preservation technique only recently becoming more widely used.

Table 7 summarizes the various groupings of responses to the most widely supported land protection measures.

Land Protection Measures

	More Open Space		Stronger Enforcement			Stricter Regulations
	Strongly		Strongly			Strongly
Groups	Agree	Agree	Agree Agree			Agree	Agree
Year-Round Residents	38.1	37.2	39.2		32.3	30.0	29.4
Seasonal Residents	50.2	32.7	41.2		32.7	37.6	33.0
All Residents	42.7	35.7	39.5		32.0	32.8	30.9
Combined	\ 78.4/		\	71.5/		\ 63.7/

Riparian Prop Owners	44.4 37.5		41.3		30.5 37.5 31.1
Non-Riparian Prop Owners	38.9 31.8		34.8		34.8 24.1 31.0
All Prop. Owners	42.3 35.4		38.8		32.1 32.3 31.1
Combined	*\ 77.7/*		\	70.9/	\ 63.4/

Table 7

VIII. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY TOWNSHIP

A question asked whether the township should invest time and money toward attracting various economic activities to the area.

The most favored economic activities identified by property owners are: tourism and resort related businesses, farming, light manufacturing, and commercial/retail.

All of the above activities are supported by property owners, however, there is no clear mandate of how township officials would prioritize their investment of public resources (money) toward supporting the noted activities.

Comments implied that a role of government should be to encourage certain economic activities. Part of this encouragement would be to remove barriers to expansion and business development.

IX. GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

There is a general lack of consensus among property owners as to the role of government in providing incentives or inducements which would encourage economic development.

There were 1085 responses to this question since multiple responses were invited. The most favored incentive identified was "tax breaks or tax relief (20%). However, this option was essentially offset by property owners who said, "No government incentives should by offered."

Comments generally were not favorable toward providing governmental incentives for economic development. There seems to be general agreement among property owners that expanded economic activity will be a natural by-product of area growth.

X. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW POLICIES

A. Township And Community Image

There is strong agreement that developing policies to protect scenic views, scenic roads, and developing a stricter junk/blight ordinance are highly important to township property owners. Over 90% of property owners support this policy recommendation.

Preserving historic buildings is important to over 80% of property owners. Developing architectural controls and sign regulations are of lesser priority (70%), though strongly supported.

Property owners generally "agree" or "strongly agree" that all of these policy measures should be considered by Township officials to enhance the overall image of the township.

B. Environmental Protection

The environmental protection policies most strongly supported by over 80% of property owners are for Township officials to consider development of new policies related to: solid waste and recycling concerns; septic tank/drain field regulations; groundwater protection measures; farm and forest land protection measures; and noise control.

Over 70% of property owners agree that policies should be developed to address the following concerns: oil and gas development; shoreline zoning; open space for new development; and storm water drainage control.

A private road ordinance policy is supported by a majority of property owners (55%).

Only 45% of property owners agree that a park on each lake and river is needed. Over 20% of property owners apparently are satisfied with the present park system, and another 21 % are undecided.

C. Growth Management

The most widely supported growth management policy agreed upon by property owners is to concentrate development to preserve open space and rural character, (88%).

Over 70% of property owners agree that limiting residential and commercial strip development, and limiting the intensity of land use are good growth management policies.

Only 35% of property owners agree that limiting the extension of utilities is a good policy goal to control growth while nearly 30% disagreed with this assessment. Another 30% were undecided on this question.

APPENDIX A. - GRAPHICS

Demographics

Residential Status

Riparian vs. Non-Riparian Length of Residency Registered Voter

Age

Employment Status

Household Income

Land Use Issues

Perceived Problems

Growth Management Land Allocation, General Land Allocation, Residential Land Allocation, Recreational Importance of Resource Protection Mobile Homes

Methods of Resource Protection

Township Investment -- Economic Activity Government Incentives

New Policy Options, Township/Community Image New Policy Options, Environmental Protection New Policy Options, Growth Management

Forest Home Township Citizen Opinion Survey - 1995
- Comments -

Numbers indicate the specific response options noted on the survey form (the small boxes). Example: No. 3 under Lakes notes all the comments made related to "overcrowding of boats on Inland lakes."

Question 1 - Problems

Lakes

1. Maintain accesses we do have. Pick up hazards such as broken down fish shanties.

Some are closed-off by neighbors.

Need better Public Access on some lakes.

2. I pay dearly every year for my own spot on the lake. 3. Speed Is a problem.

jet ski noise/danger (swooping too near people and shore). Wildlife is threatened by small craft too. Jet skis.

Clam Lake only.

Definitely on some.

4. Public also.

Image: Community and Township

5. Not yet, but could be a problem.

Political Garbage. - No more please.

6. Mostly power company-related.

Not yet, but could be a problem.

7. Especially along M88 east of Bellaire.

Especially on Eckardt Road and Honey Hollow. Also next to our residence there Is an old building which is nothing but a hazard especially to little children -- should be torn down. Please.

Maintain strict standard. Enforce garbage pick up. Cite health hazards •private dumps.

Visible tire disposal yards. Visible auto Junkers. Only on Honey Hollow Rd.

Some in poor areas, also along road- not horrible. (Blank)residence on Eckhardt Rd. Road side litter and dumping of garbage. South of Bellaire on 88.

Transportation

8. Bikes on road!

Improve traffic flow at M-88/620 intersection in downtown area.

Should not be allowed to park on main road by the church by the hardware. A happy problem.

Stop at Cayuga or Bridge.

9. If you think this Is bad, try Detroit.

Not bad, except A!den - Rapid City Route.

10. 593 from intersection 620 to ManceIona junction is a disgrace to the county with its bad condition.

Next to Kalkaska County, Antrim is quite good. Poor Surface

In spots.

Economic

11. Cut taxes - enterprise will follow.

Try to develop good jobs with benefits for young people. Housing/Growth. You probably can't have it both ways.

Does not seem as much a problem in Forest Home Township. Please continue to enforce zoning.

14. Of course, but that Is what keeps this area serene. Housing

15. Too much taxes for retired people. I had this place for 30 years and I have to rent to keep up with taxes.

Not to my knowledge.

If everyone had to obey codes.

Zoning Is a protection for all property.

16. With new jobs come more people to compete for them, and the problems follow.

18. Thank goodness.

Rentals.

Growth

23. You're kidding with those High Taxes.Uncontrolled.

11 -23. Not a township matter.

Question 2 - Desirable Qualities

24-38. All of these things are important -- and they are all subject to change. 29. We can zone, but progress is inevitable or the area will die. 37. Economy needs some Industry.

38. Exception farms.

Question 3 - Feelings About Growth

39. We have had enough.

Don't abuse the Tourist & Lake Prop.

That means real trouble in the sewage, schools, traffic, etc. Controlled growth.

Please don't let it grow in population too fast or you won't like it either- you can expect crime for sure.

Let growth take Its own course with the zoning plans we already have.

Question 4 - Land Allocation

Residential

40. None.

43. None.

45. If there is demand.

Commercial

49. No.

50. No.

51. No.

Industrial52-55. No.

Resource Development

56. Family farms, not big commercial ag.

58. Parks have perhaps need to be patrolled to avoid vandalism.

Recreational

65. Walking and hiking.

66. Off of roads (main). Not on roadways!

40-66. Who is going to "allocate" land? Do you anticipate "allocating" the land I own?

We do not want land allocated by the government. You are taking it for granted we all are Socialists in political philosophy.

Answers would be more valid if the current % allocation was provided!

I do not wish to tell other property owners (especially those who reside in th twp.) how to utilize their land. of course there should be some controls so that the individual/s use of his/her land does not adversely affect his neighbor. I am an absentee land owner who is willing/trusting those persons who live in FHT to make reasonable and fair decisions. don't drive out the absentees wit unfair taxing policies.

Become strict now, don't give in to all the home builders- they will cause over growth and destroy the area like they have done in the Commerce/Walled La' area- the same thing will happen there too and fast- it only took a few years of lots of building homes, strip malls, very dangerous on the lakes with too many boaters, crime is really bad! Stop the Ski-doo boats before they take over your lakes like they have here- noisy too! We have lost so much wild life here in the 30 yrs. we have been here.

Question 5 - How Important to Protect Resources

67-74. All resources are important. "Protecting" resources implies regulations. Regulation implies government management. Government management implies loss of freedom.

Something for kids to do -- roller skating for one. 68. Too many views are being denied public access. Other: Question 5

Wider road M-88.

Anything responsible for saving character of area is very important for the future.

Don't abuse the lake property owners. You're ruining all future development. 5

Don't allow large irrigation systems to lower water table too much.

Loon habitat.

Rid area of junk yards.

No tree cutting on public land by commercial cutters. People come to enjoy as is, not to be overcrowded. Loons habitat!!

The main thing that makes Bellaire "SPECIAL". More restrictions.

Quiet, no motor noise off road.

Wetland should be defined between real wetland and mud puddles. Less power boat & ski jet noise.

Limit public access to inland lakes. Orchards, garden, small farm. Noise reduction.

Abolish clear-cutting of forests.

Intelligent and effective zoning restrictions will help. How current are the zoning board and council members?

Architecture of older buildings and homes. The less government- THE BETTER. Nature Courses.

Lower water levels in upper chain, dredging of channels. Slow traffic, protect deer, wildlife. Protect wild life.

Boat speed, boat horsepower.

Small town setting.

Quiet time on All lakes.

Junk cars rusting, farm machinery, old buses is a terrible local problem.

Schools for the children's sake make them as effective as you can. What does protect mean?

U.P. will be only place to find peace and solitude. Don't change!! Rely more upon natural evolution than managed care. It's very eclectic and I would like to see it stay this way.

Extremely important. Keep those lakes clean. We presently live on Commerce Lake, and our lake and many others are going bad, dirty smell, terrible - too many people- also many homes here are using Chemlawn Spray on lawns- not good!

Rural roads.

Noise abatement time.

Increase Fisheries output (Walleye & Trout)

Restrict Power Boats and Jet Ski operations to maintain water quality. Clean Lakes and Controlled Boating Wake laws enforced on Grass River.

Question 6 - Mobile Home Location

Other:

No more mobile parks.

No place -- Have you seen (another nearby village)?

This is complicated. The best answer would probably be that all homeowners in area would have to vote them in or out.

Mobile home parks or certain designated residential zoning districts with restrictions on what a mobile home must have (such as skirting).

That is often the only type home a young couple can afford. I don't care, if it's kept neat.

Some occupied homes (mobile) yes.

Should be very restricted, but allowed In certain areas or in parks designed them.

None!

On land owned by resident.

Kept up, neat like all other housing. No mobile home parks. Private land- limited time. No more #'s of parks.

The property owner should have that choice.

Motor homes and travel trailers should be allowed as much as property ow wishes!!

They are a hazard on roadways; should not be used for homes. In all zoning districts, with residents' approval. Are there any in F.H. Twp?

Restrict to designated parks.

Limited time location while building a permanent home- 5 year time limit. Kept cleaned and presentable.

If approved by quality.

Ban mobile homes altogether.

Rural area, 1 or more acres.

No parks! Ugh!

Modular homes only.

Out of site or large wooded lots, 10+ acres.

Away from here.

Single or Double?

Not allowed anywhere.

Hopefully, none or very few.

Nowhere in area.

Only on a permanent foundation, and only where allowed by deed restrictions. Not at all.

Question 7 - Role of Township in Resource Protection

76. Okay now.

77. Not knowledgeable.

For unique and rare area qualities. 82. Seems to be enforced now.

Other:

As long as it is for land conservation.

Conservation education, for example, Grass River Natural Area programs.

Would rather have private conservancy funds help to buy sensitive land -- or work together with conservancy measures.

Access site to lakes must be maintained, not necessarily heavily regulated. Too many government regulations now.

Keep the government out of It. No new taxes.

Strong, intelligent, farregulation.

Local government has enough to do. But encourage residence upkeep. Get ride of old junk buildings.

Stay out of it.

Government should basically have a hands off policy unless laws are broken. Need junk ordinance in residential areas.

Tax -real estate break for conservancies.

Raise taxes more to non-residents and you will be ruining any new money inputs.

Less government.

Equal taxation- not on resort reach so high.

Government should get out of controlling peoples lives and property.

People assume a fine for filling land by water is just a cost of building. Make I really a deterrent.

Consider each case on merit.

Developer provides land and moneys for schools, sewers and so on.

Often, older members like to preserve the past. That's not appropriate. We can move forward with care to the most important issues.Hold more public interest meetings to get ideas.

Educate others to land conservancy measures through donations. Mind your own business.

Too many GOOD OLD BOYS running things their way.

Use Probate Court violators to develop and maintain our Public Access to our lakes.

F.H. Twp. should not be in land acquisition business.

Non-residents should have a vote on all issues that concern our property and taxes!!!

Motel and rental tax.

You're going to tax Forest Home Township out of existence. The less government involvement is preferred. I'm for less Government and more Taxpayer consent.

We have many areas of public land in our area- no need for more Government ownership.

Spend money you have now.

Enforce speed limits on some waters and some conditions, controls of speeds and noise.

More effort required to enforce civic pride in residence housekeeping.

Question 8 - Economic Future - Attracting

83. Not drive-thru.

88. Already here.

Other:

Service businesses for example insurance, software, reservation agents, customer services, etc.

Private enterprise, not government, is the engine of the economy. Quality, quality, quality.

Let nature take its course.

Hi-tech information business.

Permanent employment.

Get off the backs of those trying to make a living.

Business for local residents- year round business.

Don't know because don't know impact (economic. & environmental of each).

Allow current expansion (i.e..: lonex)

Education. Bring in commercial and retail to re-habilitate existing old towns and architecture of the area.

Have you noticed how many properties are for sale because of taxes owed? Education, telecommunications, high tech.

Not Twp. concern; less government please.

Presume public/gov't effort.

Technological and Research.

The assets of our area are so self evident it is unnecessary to publicize them. Maybe training so the people can have year-round work. Technological Industries.

If we want to see farms, we must help them with tax adv., etc.

Question 9 - Township Incentives to Economic Development

91. Limited.

But only for non-polluters.

None.

No.

Probably not.

For set number of years.

No. no. no.92. No.

But first, study how effective this approach has been when tried in neighboring areas.

Other:

If you preserve the quality of life you currently do have, businesses will want to come into the area. Advertise what you have, not many areas can come up to the quality of life that you currently enjoy.

Every time government gets involved it does not help -- would be better for citizens to cooperate with each other.

Less government -- more private enterprise.

Steady, conservative to strong quality operations. Example: Lamina Bronze. Don't think people should have to pay taxes after their kids are gone. Let citizens needs decide.

General support.

We do not need more economic development In Forest Home. Don't encourage development!

Some #95.

Extension of sanitary sewers, where needed.

Love the place as it Is- more people just bring more problems and need for additional services.

If business wants to come to this beautiful and pristine land, they will come and pay!

No government intervention.

Just leave the enterprising persons alone and success and Improvements will follow as a result of fair competition. Private enterprise does the job better than Government. does.

Taxes are killing the area.

Lower property taxes.

With sewer, water, utilities, etc. Notax breaks! HoweverHave less welfare- maybe some will get off thenWe do not need economic development.

Tax breaks for environmentally safe small manufacturing industries.

Let the market dictate level of government involvement, but In general, less is better.

Allocate funds to meet needs the community would have and specify. No government "control".

Keep taxes low.

I'm a summer. person with no children in the school. The taxes are too high for me. Why not reduce It just for older people, but leave it the same for people who use the school?

As an area grows you need biggerschools, police dept., fire, etc. to accommodate the population. Bigger is not better.

As few incentives as possible- its a losing strategy- Forest Home should not have government incentives for industrial and commercial growth except for those that enhance abilities of individuals, such as job training, and those that help direct development to the best sites- close to town, away from sensitive natural areas.

Question 10 - New PoliciesTownship and Community Image

96. Limited.

Yes, If there are too many. 100. At what cost to whom?

101. Please!!! Make garbage removal affordable so people are less likely to dump along rural roads. Develop more recycling programs.

What Is junk and who decides? Enforce. Very, very important. Pit Time.

Ones we have now should suffice.

Environmental Protection

102-112. Education and Enforcement of all these areas would be necessary to gain compliance of restrictions already in place!

103. Enforce.

Make everyone comply to what we have now. No Fertilizing.

107. Reasonable.

Yes, if not already implemented. State laws sufficient.

108. We already have this. Enforce. State laws sufficient. Enough now.

109. If needed.

County ordinances sufficient.

Very Important- dogs barking!! 112. Very Important.

Growth Management

113. Reasonable. Concentrate/limit. 115. Reasonable.

I just seen a 100 foot by 500 foot lot -- all trees are cut down. I had my property for 30 years and I plants trees I don't cut down. I look at It and it looks like the property had a war.

115-116. Planned community for use and some areas with multiple uses and the best use of the land.

Question 11 - Other Comments

Move factories as lonex to an Industrial Park -- like to Kearney Township park.

Not being a year around resident of Forest Home Township, commercial development and jobs aren't that Important for us. Since our home is a vacation home our priorities are in preserving the environment and the scenic beauty of the township. We come north to get away from development and crowds.

Don't know what you mean by private road ordinance. We already have parks on every stream and lake that I know of. Extension of utilities when there is absolute need of course. Leave some of back roads alone unless absolutely necessary to change.

Zoning ordinances should be enforced -- no junk outside. Mobile homes should have certain requirements and areas to be built in. Bicycle paths should be added to the shoulders of roads (East Torch Lake Drive, Lake Bellaire, etc.). Our access sites to the lakes should be preserved, maintained and perhaps some minor regulations such as usage times (7 a to 10 p, example) and the types of usage at certain sites perhaps.

Too bad there weren't more questions as to restrictions on off-road vehicles including snow mobiles. They trash our area. Also, ski boats are becoming more pesky than mosquitoes.

Before implementing policy, should be voted on by public. Too much back-patting.

We do not need or want government supervision of every aspect of our lives. Anvthinqthat the government undertakes to do will increase the tax burden for citizens. And will In general result in more problems than we started with. Just keep your hands off!

Very hard to balance all factors for the various segments of population. Need to focus on the qualities of the area that made (and make) it a desirable place to live.

Begin a minimum of 10 acres for a new residence in rural areas.

Stop building on lake front of residential buildings when buildings do not have sewer systems pumped away at greater distance or not pumped at all, or when only room for a building between water and roadway is available.

Get rid of old dangerous buildings.

Antrim County (Forest Home) has a very lengthy and complex zoning ordinance --I wouldn't like to see it become any more difficult for people to abide by the county regulation and restrictions.

Zoning should be enforced, but zoning should be fair -- We need growth, but we need to check on how and what and where such growth should occur.

Something needs to be done about Jet boats on the Chain of Lakes. Don't raise taxes!!! Make government more efficient -- less regulation.

We need to keep the sand pit west of town cleaned up. All that concrete still needs to be disposed of from the Mills Concrete Building.

Road repair is urgent. More public access not necessary.

I am sorry but you're letting the wet lands leave this beautiful place. You say you're protecting wet lands but if a person has a lot of money to pay taxes then it's okay. This place in 30 years will be downtown Detroit. In fact, Clam Lake is already 1-75 in July and August. Money talks, too bad.

A junk/blight ordinance is sorely needed. It's a disgrace and eyesore in our township.

Need to be more concerned regarding dumping of garbage in scenic rural areas such as Vandermark Road.

Over-development (i.e. too many resorts or condos) will ruin tourist appeal.

Bellaire needs to change the existing traffic light to a 4-way stop light or a 2-way red/2-way yellow.

I'm not educated enough on matters of concern in northern Michigan. If the public officials are like U.S. government officials they should keep hands off a lot of regulations.

This area has clean air, sparkling waters, beautiful forests, and, in general, appears to be a great place to be especially compared to the crowded down state scene. These are your strengths. Please try to maintain them at all costs. With increased development will come more people and a specific set of problems. Do you really want this? I would hope not. Thanks for the chance to respond!

Older septic tanks should be required to be updated when homes (older) are resold!

I have been spending as many week ends as I can in the Bellaire area for 30 years. I used to like to go down to Traverse City; but it has become so crowded and over-developed the bay water is dirty and the traffic a hassle -no different than what I'm trying to escape from down state, that I don't go there at all anymore. Please try to keep the peace and serenity this area is still blessed with.

Forest Home township needs to develop industrial area to supply decent full-time paying jobs. Progress!! So that people can afford to support the community and Its organizations.

Go back 15 years ago and remember what it was like living here. Compare it to now. More traffic, more congestion, more crime, more headaches, progress Is good so long as it doesn't change the quality of life. I don't want to see that change.

You're kidding yourselves with the current tax system - you're inviting slow or no new economic growth - Michigan is going backwards in attracting new money - your real estate values are going to decline - you need to be creating not punishing new investment.

Keep government out of development.

McDonalds was probably a mistake- please no Walmarts, K-Marts- strip malls, etc. Keep it QUAINT- small town FAMILY BUSINESSES it's a rare quantity - try to preserve it- once it's lost, its gone forever.

Stop the property tax increases to seasonal owners for schools!

I think taxing seasonal property owners at a higher rate than residents Is both unfair and a strategic mistake. This will limit flow of money into area for home improvement.

Very Important for 4 - way street light in the town area on 88. That is big need. Also, street light In sub. areas- such as Cedar Meadows, a lot of new families moved In. Children need traffic control signs.

We need stricter shoreline zoning and we need to address the issue of funneling on our lakes and rivers. These issues need to be addressed in a proactive format to protect the lakes and the habitat.

I was born & raised in Forest Home Twp. and am seriously considering returning for retirement. It Is still "home" to me.

My taxes in your area are as high as those 3 hours south near all the industry and conveniences. You have a beautiful township- don't ruin it In the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Let people go to Traverse for industry- keep our area preserved and quiet. Isn't there any way to keep the industry away, yet keep the taxes to an affordable level? If not, many will sell out and go further north we want a quiet community - not an overtaxed elite group of snobs from Birmingham & soon that's all that will be left. P.S.- this survey is an excellent Ideal

Do not wish to make choices without financial information, this would be irresponsible.

The township has done a good job of balancing growth and preservation.

Encourage people to spend their money in Antrim Co. Encourage small businesses. Make small businesses competitive by combining and increasing their buying power.

The fact that I grew up on a lake and try to keep the land in the family doesn't mean I'm rich. Taxes for non-residents do have limits of affordability among us with deep roots, too.

Require disclosure of all zoning, restrictions, etc. to prospective property buyers and buyer disclose use intent of property.

Repair County Roads- Clam Lake Rd., N. Cottage Drive.

We are very concerned about over-development of the area- both residential and commercial. The township should not become a "Disneyland' either.

If extension of utilities means enticing heavy industry I am opposed to it. If on the other hand we merely cover normal growth and some light industry utilities must be extended.

As a very senior citizen I should like to see Forest Home in Antrim county profit by careful planning to avoid the mistakes I have seen elsewhere.

Bellaire must attempt to keep up with progress (especially In technology) or people will not want to live there. CompuServe and other computer capabilities, transportation, etc. Hope the airport can reopen.

You did not mention the very high property taxes on lake front vacation homes.

All utilities should be placed underground. No high tension lines in area. Government has taken the JOY out of living.

Government would be the least possible. People generally know how to mind their own affairs- if there Is any money left after taxes.

Limit commercial development on an as needed basis.

Let's not fall into the trap: "We need more businesses and industry to Increase the tax base and increase jobs." Gaylord and Grayling have been "singing this tune" for 50 years. The jobs and tax base increases neverkeep up with the influx of new people looking for those jobs, and the additional burdens on the tax base for providing services to the new businesses and Industry. Grayling imposed a city income tax that was supposed to pay for paving the city streets- but mainly it pays the wages (ever increasing) of a city manager and his staff. Let's not go that route!

I don't believe its fair or a good idea to penalize or force a land owner to keep his place "as is" just so the rest of us can enjoy the view of their property as we drive by.

Keeping government small In our twp. Big government makes too many rules and regulations, and that becomes costly. Let's keep it small.

No doubt, it is Impossible to prevent growth but I believe most if not all summer residents favor limited and carefully planned growth with effort to prevent a drift toward an urban environment.

Generational ownership of private and farm property should be encouraged. Inheritance should not be jeopardized because of property value Increase combined with lower ability to maintain income level.

Develop and maintain and permanently mark public accesses to lakes. Some questions In this category seem biased in the way they are phrased.

Bellaire is a small and quiet town- I would like to see this town stay this way and not bring In every eating place there Is. More activity needed for children!

Free county- but need rules on developed areas. 19

We came up north to get away from crowded conditions, heavy traffic, etc.

Do not spend tax dollars to attract anythlng("They" will find Antrim County anyway- sooner than you will want "them" to.)

Fast growth could ruin the many plus factors of this area. I don't trust Government.

Additional recycling areas and encourage more recycling. Growth- for more Jobs.

It Is Important that the township balance issues between year-round residents and those who own/use vacation/summer property. Not only issues but costs. Present property tax methodology certainly favors local residents (i.e. school tax, waterfront).

Each proposed development must be judged by Its own peculiar location and impact on the environment and community. Difficult to formulate zoning rules to cover.

I long for more cultural development, but truly Bellaire is unique in itself and many people come here because of that. But art gallery types of things- a little concert- there is very little to do In Bellaire.

This survey is general in nature and specific questions need to be addressed on certain properties.

Strict administration and enforcement of zoning and related ordinances. Encourage seasonal residents to participate in township affairs- e.g.- register to vote locally. Join in such organizations as Three Lakes Assoc., Torch Lake Prop. Own. Assoc., etc.

We are leaving the Commerce/Walled Lake area because of so much growth, creating crime, road kill of wildlife, car accidents, noise and only hope Forest Hills remains the way it presently is.

Township collects large amounts of money from fees it collects. What do they do with the money? Lets spend some of it for improvements in lake use. Also many ordinances restrict people from improving their property. They should be improved.

Stop any attempt at funneling; large developments using limited lake access or frontage or park lands.

We really need to encourage commercial growth. It's a real problem having to set aside a whole day to run to Traverse City or Gaylord. I've gotten so I run to Charlevoix K-mart because its closer. I'm pleased that we'll now have a McDonalds and Little Caesars.

Would be helpful to have conference with owners and developers to plan for the most satisfactory and environmentally desirable use of the land on an Individual case basis.

It's real nice the way it is. Leave well enough alone.

Ultimately need natural gas.

Get a tax assessor that knows what preserving farm land means.

I strongly feel that there is not enough in the community for our young people to keep them busy and I strongly feel that Bellaire should have a curfewbefore our kids are getting into more trouble.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Thank you for asking us. We love Bellaire. Good Questionnaire.

Stop spending my tax moneys foolishly. Most of this stuff costs moneylower taxes.

I'm adding this note because I know that the year around residents have a different feeling about the area than we do as residents for part of the year. I live in Florida most of the time and I understand the feeling of residents toward tourists. They have the big impact on us so why not charge them with the bulk of taxes and have them pay for the inconvenience that they cause. Florida is growing, and the beauty is disappearing due to the residents need for a better life and a disregard for the natural beauty that we have. I fear that this is happening to the place that I love the most. I fear that the economic needs of the area will over-shadow the non-economic value of the area and end up like us with amusement park after amusement park and shopping center after shopping center and housing development after housing development.

Demographics Section Question 12 - Residential Status

117-127. This information is none of your business. 117. Landlord.