R E P O R T. Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan R E S E A R C H

Transcription

1 R E S E A R C H R E P O R T Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Michigan State University Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan KEWEENAW HOUGHTON ONTONAGON GOGEBIC BARAGA MARQUETTE LUCE IRON DICKINSON ALGER DELTA SCHOOLCRAFT MACKINAC CHIPPEWA CHEBOYGAN PRESQUE ISLE MENOMINEE EMMET OTSEGO MONTMORENCY ALPENA CHARLEVOIX PRESQUE ISLE LEELANAU ANTRIM CRAWFORD OSCODA ALCONA MONTMOR. ALPENA BENZIE GRAND TRAVERSE KALKASKA MANISTEE WEXFORD MISSAUKEE ROSCOMMON OGEMAW IOSCO ARENAC MASON LAKE OSCEOLA CLARE GLADWIN HURON BAY TUSCOLA OCEANA NEWAYGO MECOSTA ISABELLA MIDLAND MUSKEGON MONTCALM GRATIOT SAGINAW GENESEE SANILAC LAPEER ST. CLAIR OTTAWA KENT IONIA CLINTON SHIAWAS. MACOMB ALLEGAN BARRY EATON INGHAM LIVINGSTON OAKLAND VAN BUREN KALAMAZOO CALHOUN JACKSON WASHTENAW WAYNE BERRIEN CASS ST. JOSEPH BRANCH HILLSDALE LENAWEE MONROE September 2001 Research Report 577

2 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Sarah L. Genschaw District Land and Water Resource Extension Agent Murari Suvedi Associate Professor, ANR Education and Communication Systems Pamela Bartholomew Graduate Assistant, ANR Education and Communication Systems Abstract The landscape of northern Michigan is changing. Rural northern Michigan communities are being challenged with increasing population growth and development. The demographic feature affecting land use change in the northeastern region is the movement of population out of the urban and suburban areas and into the rural regions of northern Michigan. Eight northeastern Michigan counties totaling 2,800,000 acres of land contain approximately 524 inland lakes, 2,311 miles of streams and 190 miles of Lake Huron shoreline. Northeastern Michigan is the least populated area in the Lower Peninsula with limited transportation corridors. The region has great expanses of woods and water as well as numerous local and state parks.. To learn more about the issues of land use and community growth, MSU Extension conducted an opinion survey of public officials in the eight northeastern Michigan counties. The purpose of this study was to gauge how much influence land and water resources have on their communities decision-making and planning process. Seven hundred ninety-six public officials in the eight counties Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego and Presque Isle were mailed a survey questionnaire January 5, Findings indicate that the majority of officials involved in land and water resource planning are over 50 years of age and have lived in the area more than 30 years. The majority of respondents believe the area has experienced growth pressure and pressures will increase significantly over the next five years. Poor public understanding of land use issues was identified as a major barrier to land use decision making. Respondents also identified several educational needs to improve their decision-making skills and capacity. 1

3 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Michigan s landscape has evolved over time through a series of substantial land use transformations. More than 10,000 years ago, glaciers worked their way across Michigan, carving out our magnificent Great Lakes and rolling terrain. During the 1800s, the logging of pines and hardwoods to build new towns and railroads left virtually no virgin timber standing. Blizzards, forest fires and floods have changed the landscape of Michigan and challenged its people. Yet through it all, Michigan s landscape has remained good to its residents. From pioneer exploration to resource extraction and from homesteading to a network of interstate highways, land resources have improved our way of life. Michigan s land has been farmed and its forests harvested. Michigan s lakes have been fished, and its natural gas has been drawn from the ground. The 37 million acres of land Introduction that make up the state of Michigan have consistently provided its inhabitants with food, water, shelter, and fuel. Citizens residing in the Great Lakes Basin value their places of residence for their plentiful freshwater lakes and streams to fish and swim, large tracts of farmland, open spaces for beautiful scenery and forested hardwoods that provide glorious fall foliage. According to a Michigan State University report, A Portrait of Michigan (MSU, 2000), Michigan is the eighth most populous state in the nation with a population of 9,863,775 people in It s a state many feel lucky to call their own, yet it s a state facing growing challenges to manage its land and natural resources while accommodating development. Reading through current newspapers, it s hard not to run across an article concerning the increasing pressures of growth and development on our landscape. Headlines such as the Rate of Land Development has Doubled (Associated Press, 1999) and Battleground of the New Millennium (Wildlife Volunteer, 1999) fill our newspapers and our televisions. Stories describe the threat of an omnipresent epidemic of traffic congestion, supermalls, subdivisions and pollution. Low-density development, single-use zoning standards and decentralized governmental services compound the problem. Formerly large open areas of land have become home to low-density land use structures such as shopping centers and single-family households. Our towns and cities no longer hold the appeal that they did in the past as places to live and raise a family. This process of sprawl into areas beyond the outer boundaries of towns and cities threatens our natural resource-based industries, our wildlife corridors, our rural character and our quality of life. With the draw of developments comes an increasing proportion of new residents living in suburban areas that appear more disconnected from their land. Residents fill in wetlands to build bigger homes. Trees and shrubs are cut down by the lakeshores for better views from living room windows. Land Use in Michigan We have created a world separate from our natural one, a world that contains our cars, industries, highways and homes. Yet we remain dependent on our natural resource base for its water supplies that fuel our industries, for our wooded subdivisions that offer privacy for our homes and for highways that lead us north to private hunting camps and cottages. Are headlines in the newspapers such as Decentralized and automobile dependent and Illprepared to handle growth indicative of where our society is heading? Land use issues involve multiple stakeholders, from agricultural producers to local retailers and forest industries to the family of four looking to buy a 2-acre parcel. The fundamental question remains: should the landscape shape development, or should development shape the landscape? And who should be held accountable to pay the community s cost of development? Recognizing the need to prioritize environmental issues and concerns as they relate to statewide risks, Gov. John Engler launched the Relative Risk Analysis Project in Three teams of state agency personnel, scientists, and citizens reached similar conclusions on the ranking of 24 environmental issues. 2

4 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Absence of land use planning that considers resources and the integrity of ecosystems and degradation of the urban environment topped their lists. Concern for the impact of land use decisions on our natural resource environment is not new. Reviewing the Governor s Special Commission on land use report, Gov. William Milliken highlighted the conflicts of land use and the threat of an expanding population and the physical limits of our land resources three decades ago (Land Use Report, 1972). Results of the 1975 Michigan Public Opinion Survey in the northern Lower Peninsula shows that land use conflicts are not new in northern Michigan (Kimball, 1977). Figure 1. Land use conflicts, 1975 regional survey. 27% 31% 42% not a problem moderate to serious slight problem If current trends continue in Michigan s land consumption, 1.5 million to 2 million more acres of land will be occupied by development by This is a 63 to 87 percent increase over 1990 and as much land as that which served 9.2 million people in The stark difference is that this increase in land consumption will serve only 1.1 million more people (Wyckoff, 2000). The Michigan Society of Planning (MSP) Trend Future report further indicated that...average lot sizes have risen from quarter-acre lots to two-acre lots in some areas, and to ten-acre lots in many other areas. This results in much more land conversion for use by fewer people than any period except Michigan s original settlement back in the 1850s. Low-density, high land consumption development trends threaten Michigan s natural resource base that draws tourists to sail our pristine Great Lakes, hike on a colorful wooded trail in the fall or eat fresh Michigan cherries in the summer. Along with tourist dollars, land-based enterprises important to northeastern Michigan s local economy such as farming, forestry and mineral extraction, are also at risk. One such area that is receiving great attention for its high growth and natural aesthetic appeal is in the northwestern region of the state Traverse City in Grand Traverse County. Statistics reveal the rapid growth patterns the county experienced in a short time. The county s state equalized valuation, representing half the estimated cash value of all property, rose from $1.3 billion in 1991 to $2.4 billion in Grand Traverse County is currently ranked 20th out of 83 counties in Michigan in property values, and first in northern Michigan (English, 1999). As land values continue to increase in the northwest, growth pressures are working their way into rural northeastern Michigan, making their way into Otsego County and the I-75 corridor. Houses are being built on the edge of farmlands and state forests, increasing stress on county and local road systems as well as emergency services. Sprawl has become an economic epidemic for northern townships, which must provide infrastructure and services to increasingly far-flung households. How can communities keep their forestlands intact while building important transportation corridors necessary for development? The dispersed land development pattern is creating disproportionate uses of public services, with long-term consequences for local governments dealing with limited budgets. 3

5 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Northeastern Michigan is currently the least populous area in the Lower Peninsula. The eight counties that make up northeastern Michigan total 2.8 million acres of land. The area contains approximately 524 inland lakes, 2,311 miles of streams, eight major watersheds and 190 miles of Lake Huron shoreline (NEMCOG, 1996). Within a four-hour drive from downtown Detroit, northeastern Michigan holds large tracts of property for hunting clubs, inland lakes for summer cottages and great expanses of vacant land for second homes. With limited transportation corridors, the region remains largely rural. The I-75 transportation corridor serves Crawford, Otsego and Cheboygan counties, where growth pressures are evident with increases in automotive congestion as a result of the corridor access. The remainder of the eight-county region is accessed by three- and two-lane highways M-33, M-65 and U.S.-23. As you drive north into northeastern Michigan, you will see primary assets such as forests, lakes, farms and wildlife that reflect the northern lifestyle. But you also see the beginnings of low-density sprawl such as Big Box shopping centers, chain fast food restaurants and expansive parking lots indicative of urban growth areas. Land Use in Northeastern Michigan The region s abundant natural resource base makes land-based industries an important foundation of northeastern Michigan s economy. Leaders in industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining, oil and gas enterprises have expressed concern for the future viability of their enterprises. The current trend of land parceling for low-density housing creates a lasting and irreversible impact on these industries. The average lot size of 10 acres for second home development has caused significant shifts in the county s forestry resource. A minimum parcel size of 40 acres is required for efficient commercial timber harvest, so parceling the land for subdivisions endangers the natural resource industries and northern communities economies. The draw of second homes is apparent in the division of land parcels. Though many northern counties have not seen an increase in their population counts, land divisions continue to rise. Comparing plat books from the 1920s to today (see Figure 2) shows how the composition of the landscape is changing. Urban migration to northern rural areas has been expensive for many local residents residing on prime waterfront properties. Long-time residents now face higher property taxes as dream homes are being built next door. As residential development spreads into Figure 2. Central part of Caledonia Township in Alcona County

6 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan rural areas, the price of land increases, resources become fragmented, infrastructure costs rise and the very rural character that attracts tourism disappears. Planning for future growth and resource management is compounded by the diversity as well as the scarcity of available land use planning resources in the region. Local units of government in northeastern Michigan vary greatly in their development of land use plans and the availability of implementation tools to carry out their land use decisions. Many local units rely on part-time planning commission officials and suffer from a lack of land use educational materials and programs because of budget constraints and geographical distance from training sessions. Michigan State University Extension and Land Use Michigan State University Extension (MSUE), known for its technical outreach through education, has recognized a need to provide a formalized land use initiative to address regional land use concerns and community needs. Extension s Area of Expertise (AOE) teams at Michigan State University are competent sources of information relevant to their fields of concentration. The AOE teams link university resources and Extension field agents into a network of communication for developing educational programs. Land use is one AOE area of specialization. As a land-grant university with local staff members in every county, MSUE assists local units of government and brings educational outreach to Michigan citizens. Equipping community leaders with the technical knowledge and leadership skills necessary to perform their duties effectively and responsibly has been a major initiative for the Land Use AOE. It provides local governments with up-to-date tools for making land use decisions that will affect their landscape. Conservation design, principles in planning and zoning, land use/land cover analysis and enhanced access to educational research are just a few program initiatives. MSU Extension staff members in the northeastern region began a land use initiative in September 1999 with collaborative funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Northeast Michigan Community Foundation and MSU Extension. A regional Extension land use and water quality agent for MSU Extension was located in Alpena County to serve the eight northeastern Michigan counties. Education efforts emphasize the fundamental science behind land use and water quality issues to create an understanding of land use so that decision making related to land use planning can be based on physical and social science research and knowledge. Purpose of the Study The increasing demand for land in northeastern Michigan underlines the need to raise the awareness of township and county planning commissions about the innovative planning tools developed in recent years. Issues surrounding land use planning and regulation and the tools and techniques available within Michigan to address them have become increasingly complex. Land use decision making in Michigan is done almost entirely at the city/village and township level so it was important to determine the level of concern and understanding about land use issues and planning tools by local decision makers in the eight-county area. It was important to identify what northeastern Michigan decision makers needed to know on land use issues so that Extension could develop relevant and constructive educational programming. The 20-question survey also measured their assessment of regional growth pressures. This study was designed to answer the following questions: What types of growth pressures have these counties been facing? Were northeastern Michigan decision makers aware of the development trends forecasted for their region? Did they have the proper land use implementation tools to handle increased pressures of growth and development without losing the character of the northern landscape? What types of land use programming would they like to see from their Extension office? 5

7 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan MSU Extension s role in northeastern Michigan is to train county and local government officials to understand and use planning and development tools to help them guide growth. Specifically, the role of Extension is to increase the capabilities of local land use officials to successfully address development trends which impact water quality and land. A challenge built into the task of addressing issues of community growth and land use in northeastern Michigan is that localized areas have different growth pressures depending on their proximity to interstate highway corridors and tourist attractions. A standardized program would not be effective for both coastal counties and counties along the expressway corridor. Methodology A 20-question survey was developed at the Center for Evaluative Studies at MSU. The survey was designed to address the issue of planning for both land and water resources in northeastern Michigan. The survey instrument incorporated portions of similar land use surveys previously done throughout the state and questions designed to yield information relevant to future MSUE programming. A team of eight county Extension directors reviewed the survey and amended questions to make them relevant to the eight counties they serve. Because of time constraints and resources, the field test was conducted on a small audience of county employees, and changes were made accordingly. The population sample of this study was made up of 796 city, township and county land use officials in the northeastern region as identified by the MSU county Extension directors. This group included planning and zoning board officials, members of elected boards and councils, employed county staff members and boards of appeal members. With help from the Community Foundation for Northeast Michigan s Environmental Collaborative Fund, grant money was acquired to cover postage and survey tabulation costs. Data Collection This study followed a mail survey method developed by Salant and Dillman (1996) for data collection. Each recipient received three mailings; nonrespondents received a fourth mailing. The mailings included a one-week advance notice postcard with an invitation to participate and a second mailing with the survey instrument and postage-paid return envelope. A third mailing was sent out two weeks later with a thank-you note for participating or a reminder to return the survey. A fourth and final mailing to those that did not participate included an additional copy of the survey and postage-paid return envelope. Throughout the mailing process, several local newspapers published articles on the distribution and purpose of the survey. The response rate was 69 percent of the 796 surveyed. Response rates ranged from 59 percent in Alpena County up to 78 percent in Alcona County. Analysis of Data Survey data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+) computer software program. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, medians, means and standard deviations were used to analyze the data. Cross-tabulations, graphs and charts were developed to assist in data comparison and analysis of each county s survey response. Results Perspectives on Land Use A Survey of Local Land Use Decision Makers documents land use concerns and needs in northeastern Michigan. Local land use officials responded to a 20-question survey to identify their local land use growth pressures and provide a regional perspective on issues of community growth and development. 6

8 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Profile of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan The average age of the local land use decision maker is approximately 55 years old. Thirty percent of the respondents are retired and 22 percent are selfemployed, so the scheduling of daytime programs for them is a possibility. Over 55 percent of our respondents have lived in northeastern Michigan for over 31 years. Only 15 percent serving had lived in northern Michigan less than 10 years. 3% 12% 14% 16% NE Michigan 55% 0-4 yrs 5-10 yrs yrs yrs +31 yrs Figure 3. Length of residency in northern Michigan (n=529). On average, respondents had served on their planning and zoning commission for 5 years. Years of service on city planning commissions varied from less than a year to as many as 25 years. When asked how many land use training sessions they had attended in the past five years, respondents indicated on average about 2.5 training sessions. Four questions were asked to attain a picture of what type of investment northeastern Michigan officials have in the land and water resources around them. Respondents were asked to describe whether they farmed or owned farmland or open space, if they had a financial interest in development or construction industries, if they owned property that abuts a body of water and whether they lived inside the cor- Table 1. Position and years served within the county, city or township. Planning/Zoning Commission (N) Minimum Maximum Mean (SD) County (5.3) City (6.3) Township (4.5) Elected Board/Council County (5.5) City (8.0)) Township (8.2) Employed Staff County (8.9) City (11.9)) Township (9.8) Board of Appeal County (5.1) City (8.2) Township (6.3) Other County (10.7) City (9.9) Township (9.6) porate limits of a town or city. Findings showed that out of 512 respondents: 43 percent owned farmland or open space. 9 percent had a financial interest in development or construction industries. 33 percent owned property that abuts a body of water. 23 percent lived inside the corporate limits of a town or city. Evaluation of Growth and Development in Northeastern Michigan When asked to select one statement that best described their feelings about growth in northeastern Michigan, respondents could chose from five choices: I would like to see growth encouraged. 7

9 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan I would prefer to let growth takes its own course in this area. I would prefer planned and controlled growth in this area. I would prefer limited, planned growth in this area. I would like to see a goal of no growth in this area. From the 526 participants that responded to this question, 52.5 percent were in favor of planned and controlled growth. Table 2. Statement that best describes your feelings about growth in northeastern Michigan (n=526). Feelings about growth Frequency Percent I would like to see growth encouraged I would prefer to let growth take its own course in this area I would prefer planned and controlled growth in this area I would prefer limited, planned growth in this area I would like to see a goal of no growth in this area When asked to evaluate the past five years of development in their community on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poorly planned to 5=well planned), 48 percent of respondents rated development a 3 (neither well planned nor poorly planned). Thirty-six percent of respondents indicated that development in the community had been poorly planned (1 to 2). Only 16 percent of the respondents were satisfied enough to rank development between 4 and 5. (See Figure 4.) Figure 4. Past five years of development in the community (n=524). 14% Poorly Planned 22% 48% Well Planned NE Michigan 14% 2% Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement that there has been significant growth pressure in their county during the past five years. As shown in Figure 5, 67 percent of the northeastern Michigan counties either agreed or strongly agreed with that statement and 21 percent disagreed. Otsego County was the only county with a 100 percent agreement that there had been significant growth pressure in the county during the past five years. Officials were asked if they anticipated that growth pressure would increase significantly in their county in the next five years. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that growth pressure would increase significantly (compared with the 67 percent who indicated that growth pressure had occurred in the past five years), as shown in Figures 5 and 6. Ten percent of local officials polled disagreed that growth pressure would increase in the future. This could prove to be an important finding in view of the fact that 53 percent of respondents also indicated that they would like to see growth in northeastern Michigan be planned and controlled. 8

10 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Figure 5. Significant growth pressure in the county during the past 5 years (n=531). 21% 12% 67% Disagree Undecided Agree Figure 6. Growth pressure increasing significantly in the next 5 years (n=531). Identification of Community Consensus on Land Resources and Policy To assess what type of problems northeastern Michigan local officials could vision for the future, respondents were provided with six topics related to land use. When asked what problems might face their county in the future, participants could choose from six land use areas of interest: water resources, image, transportation, economic issues, housing and growth. Participants were asked what topics would be problems for their county in the future and what topics were not problems. They were also given an undecided option. The following 10 issues emerged as high response land use topics among local officials. (See Table 3.) 13% 77% Disagree Undecided Table 3. Ten most often-cited problems facing northeastern counties in the future (n=518). Problems in future Percent Economic Lack of job opportunities 70.3 Image Junk and nuisances 69.3 Transportation Summer traffic congestion 57.1 Agree Water resources Overdevelopment of lakeshores 56.7 Economic Economy too seasonal 56.0 Local officials were also asked whether the character of the county had changed for the worse because of unmanaged development. Findings showed that: 47 percent of northeastern Michigan respondents disagreed that the character of their county had changed for the worse because of unmanaged development. 27 percent agreed that the character of the county has changed for the worse because of unmanaged development. 26 percent of the local officials were undecided on whether their county had changed for the worse because of unmanaged development. Growth Loss of forestland 49.9 Water resources Surface water quality 46.9 Water resources Groundwater quality 46.2 Growth Loss of farmland 45.7 Water resources Erosion of shoreline 41.0 Among responses from 518 officials, issues of economic concern were quite high 70.3 percent indicated that a lack of job opportunities would be a concern in the future for their county. The image of a northern community also emerged as important, with a 69.3 percent of local officials indicating that junk and nuisances would be a problem in their communities in the future. Summer traffic congestion also emerged in the top five concerns in the future. Otsego County (bordering the I-75 corridor) ranked summer traffic congestion No. 1 on its list (94 percent of respondents). 9

11 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Table 4. Importance of community being involved in protecting natural resources from fragmentation and development. Percent (n) Very Unimportant Neutral Important Very Mean (SD) unimportant important Rural character open space (.90) Scenic views (.84) Farmlands (.95) Groundwater resources (.73) Lake and stream water quality (.68) Forestlands (.80) Wildlife and wetland habitat (.89) Shoreline properties (.89) Scale mean = 4.3 (St. Dev.=0.67) After looking at growth pressures, concerns and opinions on growth and development for their county s future, the survey asked respondents to rank eight natural resource features that are characterized as traits of northern Michigan living. The survey identified rural character, scenic views, farmlands, groundwater resources, lake and stream water quality, forestlands, wildlife and wetland habitat, and shoreline properties as important. Respondents were asked to indicate on what level of importance it is for a community to be involved in protecting the land from fragmentation and development. Responses are shown in Table 4. The survey then asked to what extent respondents agreed or disagreed to consider developing policies, regulations and incentives to protect natural resources. Out of 14 policy options (see Table 5), developing stricter junk/blight ordinances, protecting scenic views, developing public access sites for lakes and rivers and adopting groundwater protection measures were the top issues. The top issue developing stricter junk/blight ordinances is not surprising in light of the finding that one of the top future problems in counties was junk and blight nuisances. 10

12 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Table 5. Ten most stated policy and development incentives. Percent (n) Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Mean disagree agree (SD) Stricter junk/blight ordinances (.88) Protect scenic views (.84) Adopt groundwater protection measures (.82) Public access sites for lakes and rivers (.91) Require new development to blend in with surrounding landscapes (1.0) Preservation of scenic rural roads (.96) Concentrate development to preserve open space and rural character (1.0) Storm water drainage control measures (.89) Protection of farmland and forestland from development (1.0) Stricter shoreline zoning (setbacks, greenbelts) (1.1) Assessment of Land Use Educational Needs and Exploration of Strategies for Educational Programming To assess what types of barriers local officials were faced with when addressing land use challenges in their community, participants were given six selections to choose from, ranging from public support to Table 6. Barriers to meeting land use challenges in the county/city/village/township (n=503). Ranking of barriers to meeting land use challenges 11 federal regulations. From these six choices, 356 local officials said that poor public understanding of land use issues was a barrier; 276 indicated that poor public support for difficult land use decisions was a barrier. (See Table 6.) Frequency Poor public understanding of land use issues 356 Poor public support for difficult land use decisions 276 Lack of zoning enforcement 212 Lack of adequate planning and zoning regulations 181 Too much state and federal regulation 168 Pressure from developers 140 Other 66

13 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Fourteen regional planning tools were listed and respondents were asked to evaluate how familiar they were with the tools by using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1= not familiar at all to 5=very familiar. Assessment of the level of awareness and familiarity with land use planning tools revealed that many of the respondents used most of the 14 land use planning tools, but at least 10 percent of the respondents were not at all familiar with any of the tools. (See Table 7.) Table 7. Familiarity with land use planning tools. Percent (n) Not at all (2) Somewhat (4) Very Mean (SD) Geological and groundwater information (1.1) Water quality data of lakes and streams (1.1) Use of private planning consultants (1.2) Land and water resource agencies (1.1) GIS (Geographic Information Systems) (1.1) Soil surveys (1.1) Aerial photographs (1.2) Wetland inventory maps (1.2) MIRIS (Michigan Resource Inventory System) (1.1) Topographic maps (1.3) Census information (1.2) Road traffic data (1.2) Road condition evaluations (1.2) Cost of infrastructure analysis (1.2) 12

14 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan Knowing how land use officials currently receive information and training related to land use planning and zoning could enhance Extension s audience impact. When asked how they were receiving information and training related to planning and zoning and how they would like to receive future information, about 390 officials responded. Newspapers were a major avenue of information dissemination in northeastern Michigan. The Michigan Township Association was also highly utilized, as well as MSU Extension. Providing land use educational outreach tools such as newspaper columns and high profile media slots could prove to be beneficial in reaching this diverse regional audience. (See Table 8.) Table 8. Current system for acquiring information on land use and zoning and requests for future training. Percent How you receive information and training... (n) Receive now Would like in future Both Correspondence courses Michigan Counties Association Internet (Web sites) Michigan Municipal League County planning department staff Michigan Society of Planning Officials Private consultants Books or bulletins Planning and zoning magazines/newsletters Workshops and seminars MSU Extension Michigan Township Association Newspapers Other Assessment of future programming needs was addressed by asking, With respect to land use planning, what would you like to know more about? Local officials indicated that more educational materials on county master plans, growth management, land division and parceling were the highest on their lists. (See Table 9.) Table 9. Ten most often-cited requests for educational land use programs (n=454). Ranking of land use planning issues Frequency County master plans 251 Growth management 236 Land division/parceling 234 Shoreline protection 193 Access to lakes/streams 189 Land Division Act 189 Communicating with citizens 184 Open space protection 179 Water resource protection 172 Writing an ordinance

15 Perspectives on Land Use: A Survey of Land Use Decision Makers in Northeastern Michigan When Michigan State University Extension s Perspectives on Land Use was distributed to local land use decision makers in January 2000, 77 percent of the respondents indicated that growth pressure would increase significantly in the next five years. Local officials also listed issues such as lack of job opportunities, junk and nuisances, and summer traffic congestion as areas of concern for their communities in the near future. The results from this survey have served as a reliable database for MSU Extension in the assessment of needs and growth management concerns of northeastern Michigan land use officials. Survey results illustrate that local officials are not familiar with many land use planning tools that are available today. One question on the survey gauged awareness of 14 land use planning tools (such as soil surveys, topographic maps, geographic information systems (GIS) and infrastructure cost analysis). Only four out of 14 tools scored in the range of familiar to Conclusion very familiar. With the acknowledgement that issues surrounding land use planning and regulation have become increasingly complex, implementation of proper tools and techniques for sound land use decision making has also become more important. While Extension seeks to provide land use education that increases the general awareness and understanding of land use concepts and tools, Extension must also ensure that it offers accurate and reliable information to assist land use officials in decision-making processes. There are great opportunities to provide relevant programming and to assist areas with localized growth management concerns. County programming and regional forums have been conducted in response to these requests, and educational materials and programs are being developed to service county-specific needs. MSU Extension will continue to build and expand upon these and to enhance future land use decision making in northeastern Michigan. 14

16 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Alcona County Total population (1990) 10,145 Projected population by ,000 Survey response from local officials 78% (86 out of 146) Total land acres (1989) 434,560 Total water acres (1989) 10,560 Acres of public or privately owned forestland 333,000 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 27 Miles of rivers and streams 362 Acres of land in farms (1997) 43,383 Local land use decision maker stakeholder input 43% own farmland or open space. 6% have a financial interest in development or construction industries. 34% own property that abuts a body of water. 21% live inside the corporate limits Land use programming requests Land division/parceling County master plans Growth management Land Division Act Writing an ordinance "How long have you lived in northern Michigan?" Alcona County respondents Number to4 5to10 11to20 21to30 Over31 Years Top 5 problems facing Alcona County in the future % of responses 1. Image Junk and nuisances Water resources Overdevelopment of lakeshores Economic Lack of job opportunities Economic Economy too seasonal Growth Loss of farmland 61 15

17 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Past 5 years of development Alcona County vs. NE Region 7 Poorly Planned Well Planned Alcona NE Region Feelings about growth in NE Michigan Alcona County vs. NE Region 7 Growth encouraged Take own course Planned & controlled Limited, planned No growth Alcona NE Region Significant growth pressure during the past 5 years Alcona County Growth pressure will increase significantly in the next 5 years Alcona County 5% 18% Agree 12% Agree 62% Disagree 83% Disagree Undecided Undecided 16

18 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Importance of protecting natural resources from fragmentation and development Alcona County Unimportant Neutral 9 93% 89% 84% 88% 82% 9 89% Important Groundwater resources Lake and Forestlands stream water quality Wildlife and wetland habitat Rural character Shoreline properties Scenic views Farm land Develop new policies, regulations % favor Stricter junk/blight ordinances 91 Protect scenic views 90 Adopt groundwater protection ordinances 89 Public access sites for lakes and rivers 86 Protection of farmland and forestland from development 84 Require new development to blend in with surrounding landscape 84 17

19 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Alpena County Total population (1990) 30,605 Projected population by ,000 Survey response from local officials 59% (86 out of 146) Total land acres (1989) 363,200 Total water acres (1989) 21,824 Acres of public or privately owned forestland 236,200 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 61 Miles of rivers and streams 301 Acres of land in farms (1997) 78,047 Local land use decision maker stakeholder input own farmland or open space. 5% have a financial interest in development or construction industries. 31% own property that abuts a body of water. 35% live inside the corporate limits of a town or city. Land use programming requests Land division/parceling County master plans Growth management Shoreline protection Access to lakes and streams How long have you lived in northern Michigan? Alpena County respondents Number to4 5 to to to 30 Over 31 Years Top 5 problems facing Alpena County in the future % of responses 1. Image Junk and nuisances Economic Lack of job opportunities Transportation Summer traffic congestion Water resources Surface water quality Water resources Overdevelopment of lakeshores 51 18

20 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Past 5 years of development - Alpena County vs. NE Region 7 Poorly planned Well planned Alpena NE Region Feelings about growth in NE Michigan Alpena County vs. NE Region 7 Growth encouraged Take own course Planned & controlled Limited, planned No growth Alpena NE Region Significant growth pressure during the past 5 years Alpena County Growth pressure will increase during the next 5 years Alpena County 17% Agree 16% Agree 22% 61% Disagree 13% 71% Disagree Undecided Undecided 19

21 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Importance of protecting natural resources from fragmentation and development Alpena County Unimportant 93% 95% 88% 81% 73% 87% 86% 75% Neutral Important Groundwater resources Lake and Forestlands stream water quality Wildlife and wetland habitat Rural character Shoreline properties Scenic views Farmland Develop new policies, regulations % favor Protect scenic views 86 Public access sites for lakes and rivers 85 Storm water drainage control measures 84 Adopt groundwater protection measures 82 Stricter junk/blight ordinances 81 20

22 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Cheboygan County Total population (1990) 21,398 Projected population by ,100 Survey response from local officials 69% (85 out of 123) Total land acres (1989) 460,928 Total water acres ( ,472 Acres of public or privately owned forestland 350,300 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 35 Miles of rivers and streams 420 Acres of land in farms (1997) 50,582 Local land use decision maker stakeholder input 44% own farmland or open space. 13% have a financial interest in development or construction industries. 35% own property that abuts a body of water. 31% live inside the corporate limits of a town or city. Land use programming requests County master plans Land division/parceling Shoreline protection Land Division Act Access to lakes and streams How long have you lived in northern Michigan? Cheboygan County respondents Number to 4 5 to to to 30 Over 31 Years Top 5 problems facing Cheboygan County in the future % of responses 1. Image Junk and nuisances Transportation Summer traffic congestion Economic Economy too seasonal Growth Loss of forestland Economic Lack of job opportunities 60 21

23 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Past 5 years of development Cheboygan County vs. NE Region 7 Poorly planned Well planned Cheboygan NE Region Feelings about growth in NE Michigan Cheboygan County vs. NE Region 7 Growth encouraged Take own course Planned & controlled Limited, planned No growth Cheboygan NE Region Significant growth pressure during the past 5 years Cheboygan County Growth pressure will increase significantly in the next 5 years Cheboygan County 15% 9% Agree 7% 9% Agree 76% Disagree 84% Disagree Undecided Undecided 22

24 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County 10 Importance of protection of natural resources from fragmentation and development Cheboygan County % 89% 77% 8 76% 71% 77% 68% Unimportant Neutral Important Groundwater resources Lake and Forestlands stream water quality Wildlife and wetland habitat Rural character Shoreline properties Scenic views Farmland Develop new policies, regulations % favor Adopt groundwater protection measures 85 Stricter junk/blight ordinances 83 Storm water drainage control measures 81 Protect scenic views 80 Public access sites for lakes and rivers 77 23

25 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Crawford County Total population (1990) 12,260 Projected population by ,900 Survey response from local officials 71% (46 out of 65) Total land acres (1989) 357,632 Total water acres (1989) 2,944 Acres pf public or privately owned forestland 308,100 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 0 Miles of rivers and streams 204 Acres of land in farms (1997) 2,568 Local land use decision maker stakeholder input own farmland or open space. 7% have a financial interest in development or construction industries. 33% own property that abuts a body of water. 19% live inside the corporate limits of a town or city. Land use programming requests Growth management County master plans Land Division Act Access to lakes and streams Writing an ordinance "How long have you lived in Northern Michigan?" Crawford County respondents Number to4 5to10 11to20 21to30 Over 31 Years Top 5 problems facing Crawford County in the future % of responses 1. Economic Lack of job opportunities Transportation Summer traffic congestion Economic Economy too seasonal Image Junk and nuisances Housing Lack of affordable low- and moderate-income housing 65 24

26 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Past 5 years of development Crawford County vs. NE Region 7 Poorly planned Well planned Crawford NE Region Feelings about growth in NE Michigan Crawford County vs. NE Region 7 Growth encouraged Take own course Planned & controlled Limited, planned No growth Crawford NE Region Significant growth pressure during the past 5 years Crawford County Growth pressure will increase significantly in the next 5 years Crawford County 7% Agree 11% 9% Agree 33% Disagree 8 Disagree Undecided Undecided 25

27 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County 10 Importance of protecting natural resources from fragmentation and development Crawford County Unimportant 96% 98% 94% 91% 83% 86% 9 54% Neutral Important Groundwater resources Lake and Forestlands stream water quality Wildlife and wetland habitat Rural character Shoreline properties Scenic views Farmland Develop new policies, regulations % favor Stricter junk/blight ordinances 96 Protect scenic views 89 Public access sites for lakes and rivers 86 Adopt groundwater protection measures 84 Concentrate development to preserve open space and rural character 79 26

28 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Montmorency County Total population (1990) 8,936 Projected population by ,200 Survey response from local officials 76% (37 out of 49) Total land acres (1989) 352,000 Total water acres (1989) 7,744 Acres of public or privately owned forestland 293,800 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 0 Miles of rivers and streams 306 Acres of land in farms (1997) 21,025 Local land use decision maker stakeholder input 33% own farmland or open space. 6% have a financial interest in development or construction industries. 33% own property that abuts a body of water. 8% live inside the corporate limits of a town or city. Land use programming requests County master plans Access to lakes and streams Water resource protection Shoreline protection Soil erosion and sediment "How long have you lived in northern Michigan?" Montmorency County respondents Number to 4 5 to to to 30 Over 31 Years Top 5 problems facing Montmorency County in the future % of responses 1. Economic Lack of job opportunities Water resources Overdevelopment of lakeshores Image Junk and nuisances Economic Economy too seasonal Water resources Groundwater quality 61 27

29 Appendix A. Summarized Land Use Profiles by County Past 5 years of development Montmorency County vs. NE Region 7 Poorly planned Well planned Montmorency NE Region Feelings about growth in NE Michigan Montmorency County vs. NE Region 7 Growth encouraged Take own course Planned & controlled Limited, planned No growth Montmorency NE Region Significant growth pressure during the past 5 years Montmorency County Growth pressure will increase significantly in the next 5 years Montmorency County 8% Agree 8% 11% Agree 25% 67% Disagree 81% Disagree Undecided Undecided 28