Frequently Asked Questions
We will be updating this page from time to time with your questions that we see arise on social media, in township meetings, and from the many wonderful in-person conversations we've had on these complex, but vitally important issues. This is a fluid situation and we're doing everything we can to keep the information current and complete.
Are you opposed to GOREC?
No! Emphatically no! Those opposed to this application are not opposed to outdoor education or to sharing our wonderful resources. We wholeheartedly agree with our GOREC neighbors that this camp's important tradition of outdoor education shouldn’t be extinguished just because Boy Scouts are no longer the beneficiaries. Hiking, biking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and responsible boating are the kinds of activities we need access to now, more than ever. We all support outdoor access and education, but that's not what this is.
What aspects of this do Forest Lakes residents support? And what do you oppose?
Maybe this question is redundant with the first, but it's essential to make clear. There is SO MUCH common ground. We have no issues with the outdoor education classes being offered, access to the trails being opened up, and responsible access to the lake being made available. This includes being fine with the hiking, biking, skiing, disc golf, kayaking, and educational programming (all enumerated by GOREC as "all they are seeking"). These are good causes and are all far less likely to have adverse effects on surrounding use. What we can't support are the medium to large-sized events, the gun range (seems to now be off the table), and the public boat launch (vs. limiting to on-site boats). We've communicated this to both GOREC and the Rotary.
And to be clear, many of these uses are not currently legal to offer on the property based on East Bay Township zoning and/or lack of proper licensing. That said, we would stand alongside of GOREC in support of their zoning request if they were truly only seeking to offer classes, trail access, recreational day use, and responsible boating.
And to be clear, many of these uses are not currently legal to offer on the property based on East Bay Township zoning and/or lack of proper licensing. That said, we would stand alongside of GOREC in support of their zoning request if they were truly only seeking to offer classes, trail access, recreational day use, and responsible boating.
Is GOREC an Event Center?
I guess it depends on whether they're asking for your help or for your money.
GOREC's own words: "We can host your group, meeting, wedding, or special occasion in our event spaces" on a page of their site with a web address that includes "event-venue-rental".
Despite defining themselves as a "Group and Event Space" on an "event-venue-rental" page that is presently booking weddings ... consider the details of what they're asking permission to do. What else would you call a massive venue that hosts: 20 large-sized special events with up to 420 guests each (including 12 summer weddings, each with up to 300 guests), 50 additional mid-sized, year-round events, with up to 100 guests for similar event types, and potentially unlimited events of 420+ guests with a Transient Activity Permit? That's upwards of 12,000 people across 70 events before a single Transient Activity Permit is pulled.
Below you'll find a copy of the events table from their most recent application to East Bay Township:
Despite defining themselves as a "Group and Event Space" on an "event-venue-rental" page that is presently booking weddings ... consider the details of what they're asking permission to do. What else would you call a massive venue that hosts: 20 large-sized special events with up to 420 guests each (including 12 summer weddings, each with up to 300 guests), 50 additional mid-sized, year-round events, with up to 100 guests for similar event types, and potentially unlimited events of 420+ guests with a Transient Activity Permit? That's upwards of 12,000 people across 70 events before a single Transient Activity Permit is pulled.
Below you'll find a copy of the events table from their most recent application to East Bay Township:
How is GOREC's plan compatible with the Rotary's principles and vision?
There is no way that it can be.
Guiding Principles
Consider for a moment, the Rotary's guiding principles. The top of the Rotary Camps and Services website says, “We have the opportunity to enjoy it. We have the responsibility to protect it.” It’s impossible to be true to that, without honoring both – enjoy and protect. This application is the polar opposite of protection.
Vision Statement
The club’s vision statement is “To be the service organization of choice with dynamic action-oriented members whose leadership and contribution improve lives in our community”. The only present action taken by the Rotary is far from one that will improve lives in our community – this application will erase our community’s identity and fundamentally regress its collective quality of life.
Four-Way Test
It’s been stated by past Rotary Presidents that the organization and Rotarians must lean on the Four-Way Test in both personal and professional relationships. Of the things they think, say or do:
Guiding Principles
Consider for a moment, the Rotary's guiding principles. The top of the Rotary Camps and Services website says, “We have the opportunity to enjoy it. We have the responsibility to protect it.” It’s impossible to be true to that, without honoring both – enjoy and protect. This application is the polar opposite of protection.
Vision Statement
The club’s vision statement is “To be the service organization of choice with dynamic action-oriented members whose leadership and contribution improve lives in our community”. The only present action taken by the Rotary is far from one that will improve lives in our community – this application will erase our community’s identity and fundamentally regress its collective quality of life.
Four-Way Test
It’s been stated by past Rotary Presidents that the organization and Rotarians must lean on the Four-Way Test in both personal and professional relationships. Of the things they think, say or do:
- Is it the TRUTH? Where we come from, a half-truth is the same as a lie. GOREC has gone out of its way to hide the full extent of this plan. Consider its website and marketing materials that we've discussed here. Failing to mention 420+ person events, weddings, and gun ranges is insincere, misleading, and aims to take advantage of our collective good nature. The gun range is now off the table and some of the materials have since come down or been softened, but only after tremendous public pushback after we brought these things to light.
- Is it FAIR to all concerned? Clearly not. Short term, only GOREC stands to benefit financially – and at the cost to all of us, our safety, and our environment. And once all of the damage is done, of what concern will it even be to GOREC staff who, with padded resumes, have gone onto other jobs? What concern will it be to the Rotary that will still be the richest Rotary in the world? What concern will it be to other supporters who don’t live on the lake, who will bear no financial responsibility for the consequences of these decisions? Few of them care about that now like they won’t care about it then. It’ll be our property that’s devalued, our lake that’s destroyed, and our bank accounts that are emptied from the enormous costs of trying to deal with the AIS. Use it up and move on. That’s what they’ll do and that’s not FAIR.
- Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? Not sure how to say this politely, but “Rotary” is already at risk of becoming a four letter word in the Forest Lakes area. If approved, this application will be the start of an unending struggle – forever creating tension, division, and strife between GOREC, the Rotary, and East Bay residents in a place that should be one solely of relaxation and recreation. This will do nothing but build ill will and erode friendships.
- Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? As mentioned above, GOREC benefits in the short term. Maybe this makes the property more marketable for the Rotary. But is this beneficial to the neighbors who will deal constantly with loud noise, booming music, smoke, busy roads, drunk drivers, and an overcrowded lake? Is this beneficial to the environment that will see the introduction of aquatic invasive species, increased air pollution, and soil erosion? Is this beneficial to the neighboring Brown Bridge Quiet Area users or its 150 species of birds and terrestrial mammals? Is it beneficial to our lake’s loons that return annually to mate and nest in the safety and tranquility of our water? Is this beneficial to the other wildlife that will be displaced from smoke, noise pollution, lake overcrowding, and amplified human presence?
Why can't Forest Lakes residents and GOREC just get together to work this out?
We have tried engaging directly with both Rotary and GOREC officials on solutions that keep the trails, property, and lake open, without coming at the cost of everything that's great about its surrounding. They won't collaborate and instead prefer to go to the township, seeking formal approval for exceptions to our laws. We want to work with GOREC and the Rotary – neighbor to neighbor. Talking past one another accomplishes little and won't do much for helping the relationship in the long run. We support SO much of GOREC's mission – just not the scope of a massive Event Center and its inevitable adverse impacts in the middle of an area of natural preservation. The ordinance prohibits things like this for a reason and there's no good reason for an exception to be made.
Why is GOREC closed for day use?
They are temporarily limited because of a zoning ordinance violation – for not following the laws of the township. As a result of staff observing illegal activities, in an information letter sent by East Bay Township back in May, the Zoning Office directly informed GOREC that its uses "must be curtailed until and if you are approved per the Planning Commission".
Why does GOREC want to host large events like weddings and conferences?
GOREC's application seeks "the ability to allow for weddings and special events to help support the camp financially" and their website states that their "mission is under threat by people who want to close GOREC to public use". Beyond being untrue (see above), this also paints a false choice, implying that GOREC and the Rotary must turn the camp into an Event Center in order to keep the trails open.
We propose two alternatives that do not require exploitation of natural resources:
It's also worth noting in either case that the property is tax free, the land holder is non-profit, the management partner is a non-profit, and the land and all the infrastructure is free. It does not get more advantageous than this.
We propose two alternatives that do not require exploitation of natural resources:
- Direct monetization as is done by most parks and other businesses. Many of us voluntarily pay for a Recreation Passport sticker on our licenses. We pay when we camp in our state parks. We pay when we rent canoes to navigate our waterways. GOREC is subsidizing access to the outdoors through means that actively harm the outdoors. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park doesn't open a cruise ship dock and resort so that we climb the dunes for free. And to be clear, direct monetization is possible without charging gate fees. GOREC can charge for the classes, charge for the camping, charge for cabin rental, and charge for the rental equipment. If their focus is truly outdoor education and recreation, then they ought be able to pair their business model with their vision.
- GOREC is the Rotary. The Rotary is GOREC. GOREC is backed by the wealthiest Rotary in the world. Per a July 2015 article on MyNorth, the Rotary has collected more than $100,000,000 in profits from the oil and gas wells on this same property, has $46,000,000 million in reserves, and nets $500,000 annually. Do they really need to host a single event to keep the trails open? When a charitable organization has access to that kind of capital, it's a choice as to when to be a charity and when to be a business. You will hear assertions that these are different divisions of the Rotary, but how they choose to draw org chart lines is only as real as they choose to make it – far from an insurmountable external constraint. If the Rotary wanted to do this in a way that's consistent with it's principles, vision, and Four-Way Test, it could choose to do so. Exploitation isn't a charitable act. Willfully doing harm to neighbors and the environment isn't the Rotary we love and remember. There's another way. And it's not too late to do the right thing.
It's also worth noting in either case that the property is tax free, the land holder is non-profit, the management partner is a non-profit, and the land and all the infrastructure is free. It does not get more advantageous than this.
What is a PUD?
A PUD is a Planned Unit Development application. It is a mechanism intended to give townships flexibility in giving a piece of property legally granted exceptions to ordinances. If approved, these applications essentially grant ordinance trumping powers that forever remain with the land, regardless of its ownership, giving whomever owns the property a perpetual blessing to not adhere to the same laws as all of the other properties in the same district. There are many instances where they make sense, as they are intended to be applied for self-contained variances that don't have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses.
These special powers, however, have constraints.
Must not have any Adverse Impacts. Our Planned Unit Development Application Requirements Statement of Intent (Section 636) necessitates that any proposed project the Planning Commission approves "will not have any adverse economic, social, or environmental impact on surrounding land uses." Any. That is precisely zero allowable impact. In the true spirit of what a PUD was meant to allow, this is to ensure that the laws a township gives the applicant permission to break will not have ANY adverse impact on their neighbors. As it has yet to be proven otherwise by GOREC, nor can it be, this impact is in the unique purview of GOREC's surrounding neighbors. Over 250 neighbors have all digitally signed a petition indicating that they believe the proposed uses would have adverse economic, social, and/or environmental impacts on their surrounding land uses. Among the expressed adverse effects are noise, traffic, smoke, environmental impact, property devaluation, lake infestation and overcrowding, safety, and the social strain of the tension this will forever bring to a place of peace.
Consistent with ordinance, compatible with adjacent land use. Section 602 on Special Land use Review Standards says: The Planning Commission, before acting on a Special Land Use Application, shall employ and be guided by standards which shall be consistent with and promote the intent and purpose of this Zoning Ordinance, and ensure that the land use or activity authorized shall be compatible with adjacent uses of land and the natural environment. The key word here is "shall". It doesn't say "may". There is no room for exception to the permitted uses being consistent with the ordinance and compatible with adjacent land uses.
These are essential, non-optional requirements to approve any PUD. So, what does it mean to be consistent with and promote the intent of the Zoning Ordinance? What does it mean to say that new land uses are compatible with adjacent uses of the land? Fortunately for us, we don't have to look any further than our own ordinance that spells it all out very clearly.
Section 231 of the Zoning Ordinance defines our Forest Lakes District. It says the following about its intent:
These special powers, however, have constraints.
Must not have any Adverse Impacts. Our Planned Unit Development Application Requirements Statement of Intent (Section 636) necessitates that any proposed project the Planning Commission approves "will not have any adverse economic, social, or environmental impact on surrounding land uses." Any. That is precisely zero allowable impact. In the true spirit of what a PUD was meant to allow, this is to ensure that the laws a township gives the applicant permission to break will not have ANY adverse impact on their neighbors. As it has yet to be proven otherwise by GOREC, nor can it be, this impact is in the unique purview of GOREC's surrounding neighbors. Over 250 neighbors have all digitally signed a petition indicating that they believe the proposed uses would have adverse economic, social, and/or environmental impacts on their surrounding land uses. Among the expressed adverse effects are noise, traffic, smoke, environmental impact, property devaluation, lake infestation and overcrowding, safety, and the social strain of the tension this will forever bring to a place of peace.
Consistent with ordinance, compatible with adjacent land use. Section 602 on Special Land use Review Standards says: The Planning Commission, before acting on a Special Land Use Application, shall employ and be guided by standards which shall be consistent with and promote the intent and purpose of this Zoning Ordinance, and ensure that the land use or activity authorized shall be compatible with adjacent uses of land and the natural environment. The key word here is "shall". It doesn't say "may". There is no room for exception to the permitted uses being consistent with the ordinance and compatible with adjacent land uses.
These are essential, non-optional requirements to approve any PUD. So, what does it mean to be consistent with and promote the intent of the Zoning Ordinance? What does it mean to say that new land uses are compatible with adjacent uses of the land? Fortunately for us, we don't have to look any further than our own ordinance that spells it all out very clearly.
Section 231 of the Zoning Ordinance defines our Forest Lakes District. It says the following about its intent:
The inland lakes of East Bay Charter Township are a defining characteristic of the community. The Township’s future land use plan clearly establishes the protection of natural features as a key goal of the Plan. That goal states, “The citizens of East Bay Township will continue to enjoy the rural character of the community as manifested in the expansive views of the Bay, the rolling hills, inland lakes and woods. The rural character will be defined by clean lakes and streams, clear air, native wildlife and the clarity of the star-filled night skies. A central purpose of this Comprehensive Plan is the preservation of these valuable assets for current and future residents.”
The zoning ordinance also states that the intent of the encompassing Lakes Area District is:
“...intended to establish and maintain a low intensity residential and recreational environment predominantly for single family dwellings in accessible rural areas adjacent to the inland lakes of the Township.”
Master Plan Future Land Use
So that’s the present. What about the Township’s future plans for this area? When comparing the current Zoning Map to the Future Land Use Map, you see that we go from "Lakes Area” in the current zoning to "Natural Area Preservation” and “Very Low Density” on the Future Land Use Map, with GOREC primarily in “Natural Area Preservation”. According to the Township, Future Land Use guides future zoning designations and broad policy decisions. The purpose of the Natural Area Preservation district is to preserve “large tracts of land offering important wetlands, wildlife habitat, forest lands and river valleys…with as little disturbance as possible.”
This is what our Master Plan document says. This isn’t just cultural ethos. It’s codified in our laws – past, present, and future. This is a contract between the Township and its current and future residents. Our ordinance bans Places of Public Assembly in the Forest Lakes Area. Large-scale conferences, races, and wedding venue uses run in direct contradiction to and violation of the Township’s Ordinance, its Master Plan and Future Land Use Map. No special use request can trump these core tenets and the well defined standards for review don’t allow it.
Many of us moved out here knowing that the way of life we sought was protected by our local laws. This plan is a direct affront to that. We're not people who moved in next to an airport and then complain about airplane noise. We never would've moved in next to an event center and it never would've been reasonable to believe one could ever move in next door to us.
Many of us moved out here knowing that the way of life we sought was protected by our local laws. This plan is a direct affront to that. We're not people who moved in next to an airport and then complain about airplane noise. We never would've moved in next to an event center and it never would've been reasonable to believe one could ever move in next door to us.
Is this proposal backed by the same Rotary group that wanted to bring Viking Cruise ships into Grand Traverse Bay?
Yup. From the linked Record-Eagle (behind paywall) post:
“A couple years ago, the leadership of the organization looked into being a port for cruise ships as a potential revenue generator,” said McDonough. …
The same property owner (Rotary) and same Rotary Camps and Services Director (Matt McDonough) tried to bring Viking Cruise Ships into Traverse Bay as a "revenue generator" with a "fairly negligible" impact. From a 9&10 article:
“The overall impact is fairly negligible when you consider there’s millions of visitors that come to Traverse City every year,” said McDonough.
First cruise ships in the Bay. Now a busy event center in the middle of the Forest Lakes.
If GOREC doesn't get approval, can the camp be sold and turned into a large housing development?
No. The entire property is bound by the terms of a Conservation Easement. This easement is recorded with the deed and runs with the land, so any future owner would be legally bound by all obligations in the agreement. As part of the terms, the land can only be split up to five times in 75 acres or larger. Even after a split and sale, every new owner would be bound by the Conservation Easement, which has strict environmental requirements. According to Section 4B of the easement, the Recreation Area, consisting of about 350 acres can be split into only 75 acre parcels or more. That results in no more than 4 parcels (350/75=4.6 so only 4 parcels can be larger than 75 acres). Also under that Section, the Camp Area, consisting of about 150 acres, cannot be split for sale but can only be sold as one lot. This area contains all the water frontage concerning the land. As such, only one owner would have any lake frontage. And as above, any new owner would have to abide by the Conservation Easement. Total lots if the land would be sold and split = 5. The easement also has a ton of restrictions that would make it almost impossible for new construction to happen on any of these lots. The short answer is, this going to a developer and more homes destroying all of the woods is something that could never legally happen.
Did GOREC do a traffic study?
In the February Planning Commission agenda packet, GOREC included a letter from KPM Engineering. This purchased letter (not a traffic study) claims to provide an “initial review of the potential traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network”.
The analysis is woefully inadequate:
These are not arterial roads. The property isn’t located on a primary county road. These facts have been confirmed by the Grand Traverse Road Commission. Hobbs Highway is a narrow, hilly, winding, limited line-of-site country road. The nearest primary intersection sits on a curve. We have to stop ignoring the impact from the change of use, both from 1000s of new guests and campers, as well as the commercial traffic that will be required to support busy Event Center operations. The road is inadequate to begin with – proposed activities will do nothing but exacerbate its underlying, unchangeable issues.
Aside from the glaring deficiencies of the provided analysis, as tax paying residents of this township, we’d also like to point out that the land is owned by a non-profit corporation, leased to another non-profit. Beyond being recklessly unsafe, this project will not pay to support the roads or emergency services. The proposed use will have huge financial impacts on these services – and it will be up to the adversely impacted neighbors to pick up the bill for these services in taxes. At minimum, the applicant should have to provide a payment in lieu of taxes to make up any deficits arising from their non-profit status.
We must insist on a proper, independent analysis and traffic generation model to accurately look at the impacts of this change in use. As of late January (months into this process), the Road Commission hadn't seen this application nor even heard about the project – we have to demand transparency and basic diligence.
The analysis is woefully inadequate:
- It ignores the 300+ campers, commercial vendors, and deliveries.
- It makes an unreasonable assumption about when events could occur relative to peak traffic times. Further, this new activity will more or less change the peak times. It doesn't matter when peak times are presently – peak traffic is peak traffic. People will be coming and going from large events whenever they are, and that will become the new peak.
- Vehicle occupancy assumptions seem unreasonable given event types and fail to cite sources.
- The analysis fails to consider that most events will happen during the summer months, when roads are already under considerable traffic stress.
- The letter also wrongly predicts future use intersection safety based on historical data, when it’s been clearly established by the Township that historic uses are not applicable given event types, frequency, and volume. 15 years of traffic data from a quiet country road cannot reasonably predict the safety of a once quiet intersection once it becomes inundated with 300 campers, commercial traffic, and 500 event guests. This is plainly ridiculous.
These are not arterial roads. The property isn’t located on a primary county road. These facts have been confirmed by the Grand Traverse Road Commission. Hobbs Highway is a narrow, hilly, winding, limited line-of-site country road. The nearest primary intersection sits on a curve. We have to stop ignoring the impact from the change of use, both from 1000s of new guests and campers, as well as the commercial traffic that will be required to support busy Event Center operations. The road is inadequate to begin with – proposed activities will do nothing but exacerbate its underlying, unchangeable issues.
Aside from the glaring deficiencies of the provided analysis, as tax paying residents of this township, we’d also like to point out that the land is owned by a non-profit corporation, leased to another non-profit. Beyond being recklessly unsafe, this project will not pay to support the roads or emergency services. The proposed use will have huge financial impacts on these services – and it will be up to the adversely impacted neighbors to pick up the bill for these services in taxes. At minimum, the applicant should have to provide a payment in lieu of taxes to make up any deficits arising from their non-profit status.
We must insist on a proper, independent analysis and traffic generation model to accurately look at the impacts of this change in use. As of late January (months into this process), the Road Commission hadn't seen this application nor even heard about the project – we have to demand transparency and basic diligence.
Did GOREC do an environmental assessment?
No. They asked the Township to waive this requirement, which was almost honored until the Township attorney informed the Planning Commission that only the Township Engineer could waive the assessment. Forest Lakes Overlay requirements, however, prohibit waiving any part of the assessment, due to the documented presence of wetlands on the property. The latest packet includes updates that we are still analyzing.
Was there a lawsuit involving GOREC?
After one conversation with Rotary Camps and Services where residents shared their concerns about the health and safety of Rennie lake and its users, with camps and services refusing to offer any assurances that the lake would be environmentally protected, residents were told to talk to the Camps and Services lawyer. Left with no choice, a group of these residents hired an attorney at personal expense so they could talk to the Camps and Services lawyer. They reached out and got no response. Once again, met with silence and no options, the group filed suit to get any protection for the lake that they could. They were able to get, through a costly lawsuit and mediation, a written commitment to no motor boats, a boat wash system, an agreement to limit public boat access to classes and campers, and a cap of 60 boats at any one time. While this does help, it doesn't address dangerous boater safety issues with excessive lake overcrowding, nor does it adequately mitigate aquatic invasive species risk as per State of Michigan EGLE and Natural Resources Protection Act based guidance. The 60 boat number was a product of negotiation and not based on a carrying capacity study, significantly lower historic Scout Camp usage, nor any other scientific method. It was all the group was able to accomplish given the fact that they were up against a $50,000,000 group. You can read the entire settlement here.