We Love
HARBOR SPRINGS
Harbor Springs is Beautiful!
Volunteer, Newsletter Sign Up and Contact us at: WeLoveHarborSprings@gmail.com
WLHS Newsletter
Powered by Substack
ZONING | WLHS BLOG | DDA | HISTORY
Press | Letters | Surveys | Corrections | RRC
The town of Harbor Springs repealed Zoning Ordinance #439. This gave our town the
right to Decide for ourselves as a community, our future within the city.
WELCOME TO WE LOVE HARBOR SPRINGS
A COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH, STEWARDSHIP, AND STRONG PUBLIC PROCESS
Harbor Springs is shaped by many decisions—large and small—that affect how we live, work, gather, and care for this place over time. Zoning is one part of that picture, but so are parks, trees, open space, public infrastructure, historic resources, and the way our local boards, commissions, and City Council engage with the community. At We Love Harbor Springs, our commitment is to strong research, clearly explained ideas, thoughtful review, and public processes that invite participation and build trust.
You can follow our ongoing work under the NEWS tab, we share research, updates, letters, corrections, press coverage, and analysis related to community decisions and governance.
Community input—through surveys, town halls, public meetings, and individual engagement—has been invaluable. These perspectives help ensure that decisions reflect lived experience and shared values, not just technical compliance.
In February 2025, the City Council chose to step away from the Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC) certification and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) program. This decision marked an opportunity to reaffirm local priorities and reaffirm the importance of community-driven decision-making.
There are more decisions like that to still be made to Preserve and Protect.
Disclosure & Commitment to Open Dialogue
We Love Harbor Springs is committed to fairness, transparency, and careful research. The information shared on this site is offered in good faith to support informed public discussion. Facts, interpretations, and conclusions presented here are always open to challenge, correction, or clarification. We welcome additional information, differing viewpoints, and evidence-based feedback at any time, recognizing that strong communities are built through accuracy, openness, and respectful dialogue. Contact us at weloveharborsprings@gmail.com with details.
“Watch” Our Facebook Page below for Latest Updates:
We are so glad to have you here and appreciate your interest in staying connected with us!
You do not need to be a Facebook user or logged in to view our WLHS posts. It’s a great way to stay updated on the latest news and events through social media. However, if you’d like to engage with our content—such as liking or commenting on a post—you’ll need to be signed into your own Facebook account.
Additional Facebook Instructions:
-
To share a post, click the three dots in the bottom right-hand corner of a post, and choose to share via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Email.
-
To view existing comments, simply click the comment button under each post.
-
To open the post directly on Facebook, click the Facebook circle icon in the top right-hand corner.
Thank you for staying connected with us and helping us build a vibrant online community!
Question came to us: What are the normal expectations for a community member that writes a letter to City Council and the letter is ignored?
Here's the skinny: a letter sent to council or board about public business will become a public record, and if staff includes it in the agenda packet it will be distributed to officials and posted with the packet online.
Your name/contact info may appear unless the city has a redaction practice; ask the clerk before submitting if privacy matters.
The letter is usually “correspondence to council/board ” not a guaranteed speaking slot or formal testimony unless the agenda/rules say so.
Council members may read it, but they usually are not required to individually respond.
Keep it concise, factual, civil, and tied to a specific agenda item or requested action.
If the person wants it orally considered, they should also attend/speak during public comment under that city’s rules.
• Grand Rapids: separates agenda-item comment near the beginning from general comment near the end. That helps people know whether their issue is being considered that night or just being placed into the public record. www.grandrapidsmi.gov/government/city-commission/how-the-city-commission-works/
Harbor Springs already has a helpful baseline: "written correspondence may be included in the Citizen Comments section of the council packet before distribution." But the missing piece seems to be feedback/traceability after that. www.cityofharborsprings.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Rules-for-Public-Comments-12.6.2022-Final.pdf
That would make Harbor Springs’ existing policy feel much less discouraging without forcing council to debate or answer every letter on the spot.
The best fix recommendation for HS may be a “public correspondence log”:
1. confirm receipt of every letter
2. show whether it was included in the packet
3. identify the topic / agenda item
4. show whether it was referred to staff, answered, placed on an agenda, or marked no action
5. explain privacy/redaction rules up front
That last part is the morale piece: even if council disagrees or takes no action, people should not feel like their voice went into a black box.
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
This letter was shared widely today about curb cuts, parking, parking cars anywhere you want and more - thought those of you on FB that read our feed may have an interest.
We can add the ADA and pedestrian safety angle — curb cuts and expanded driveways also affect sidewalk continuity and pedestrian safety, which gives the argument a stronger legal/regulatory hook beyond just parking counts.
Who approves curb cuts? — In Michigan, curb cuts on state or county roads require MDOT or county road commission approval, not just city sign-off. If some of these were done without proper permits, that's worth raising.
Economic argument — Public parking supports foot traffic and local businesses. Framing parking loss as an economic issue (not just a convenience one) strengthens the case with commissioners who prioritize downtown vitality.
Stormwater/impervious surface — Paving public rights-of-way for private use also has drainage implications. Many Michigan municipalities regulate this; it's another angle that adds weight.
Direct your questions or added points of view to weloveharborsprings@gmail.com
Parking Matters Too: A Question for the Planning Commission
As Harbor Springs debates building height, density, and Master Plan consistency during the current 90-day zoning moratorium, another important issue deserves attention: parking and the growing private use of public rights-of-way.
The Main/Gardner project has sparked significant discussion about height and downtown development, but it also highlights broader questions about curb cuts, driveway expansions, and the loss of public on-street parking.
According to Ordinance 442, an on-street parking space directly in front of a property may count toward that property's minimum parking requirement. Yet I have been unable to identify any provision that expressly authorizes private parking within off-street public rights-of-way in a manner that effectively eliminates those on-street public parking spaces next to the right-of-way.
This raises important questions:
• How many curb cuts should be permitted on a property?
• What limits exist on driveway widths and driveway skirts?
• When does a private parking solution begin to consume public land intended for general public use?
• Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with zoning regulations, city codes, and parking requirements?
• How should the city balance private development interests with the public's need for parking?
The Main/Gardner project reportedly removes six public parking spaces. While that may seem modest in isolation, it establishes a precedent that deserves careful examination. Similar situations can be found throughout Harbor Springs on streets including 2nd, 3rd, Arbor, Center, and Summit, where public rights-of-way have been paved or altered to accommodate private parking access, reducing public parking opportunities citywide.
The issue extends beyond downtown. When public parking disappears, the effects ripple into surrounding neighborhoods, increasing congestion and shifting parking demand into residential areas.
City ordinances contain numerous provisions governing curb cuts, setbacks, sight distances, parking requirements, and encroachments into public property. However, there appears to be no clear authorization for private parking within public rights-of-way except as part of approved access improvements. If that understanding is correct, then the city should carefully review how these situations are being approved, regulated, and enforced.
As the Planning Commission evaluates zoning issues during the moratorium, I hope parking impacts are included in that discussion. The community deserves clarity regarding the use of public rights-of-way, the preservation of public parking, and the standards that apply to all property owners equally.
Growth and redevelopment are important. So is protecting public infrastructure and ensuring that public spaces remain available for public use.
What do you think? Should the city review its parking and curb-cut policies as part of the current zoning review?
— Ashley O'Reilly
Harbor Springs Resident
2 CommentsComment on Facebook