Skip to Main

Traverse City Proposal 3 Passed, City Seeking Legal Advice Moving Forward

Traverse City voters have made their decision on the controversial Proposal 3.

It passed, that means Traverse City voters will weigh in on future proposed developments that are taller than 60 feet.

Removing that decision from the planning commission, but now there’s a question if that’s legal.

“It puts us in an awkward position.”

While election results make it clear that a majority of Traverse City voters wanted Proposal 3, the city manager, Martin Colburn says what happens next may not be so clear.

“It puts the city in a conundrum because we have communications from the state attorney general’s office that basically says the language in the proposal was not in conformance with the state law.”

And not just the attorney general.

The governor says, ““The proposed amendment (Prop 3) purports to limit the city commission’s ability to adopt ordinances regulating building height until after the proposal has been submitted to and approved by voters in the city. This limitation on the city commission’s authority conflicts with its authority provided in the Michigan Zoning Act…”

Leaving the city with questions that still need to be answered. The city manager says, “We’ll take a look at our options and communicate with the state agencies as well as discuss some of those options with the city commission in the near future.”

Munson Medical Center earlier this week got approved for a special land use permit for their more than 100 foot tall project and have many more permits to go. They are ready to move forward with or without Proposal Three.

President of Munson Medical Care and CEO of Munson Healthcare Al Pilong says, “We’ll continue down our path of advancing this project because we believe it’s the right thing to do for our patients and for our communities. We’ll continue to follow the process the city lays out for us and work closely with our neighbors and our community and work closely with city officials.”

Supporters of the proposal argue only a court of law can determine whether a proposal is valid or not after it is adopted. They say the attorney general and governor’s letters were only opinions of the proposal that were needed to get it on the ballot. For more information click .