Joyfield Master Plan

Joyfield Township adopted its Lakes to Land Community Master Plan on July 17, 2014.

The unique, collaborative format of the Lakes to Land Regional Initiative is reflected in the presentation of the plan, which consists of five “tabs,” or chapters. The first three are written on a regional scale and cover the planning process, context, and community engagement. The fourth tab is entirely focused on Joyfield Township, covering community-specific existing conditions, goals, and a land use plan. The fifth tab discusses collaborative efforts which have grown out of the Lakes to Land initiative and the future of the collaboration, again on a regional scale.

Full Document: Joyfield Township Master Plan (68MB)

Full Document: Joyfield Township Master Plan (68MB)

Tab 1: Introduction (5MB)

Tab 1: Introduction (5MB)

Tab 2: Context (19MB)

Tab 2: Context (19MB)

Tab 3: Community Engagement (8MB)

Tab 3: Community Engagement (8MB)

Tab 4: Joyfield Township People and Land (6MB)

Tab 4: Joyfield Township People and Land (6MB)

Tab 5: Implementation (3MB)

Tab 5: Implementation (3MB)

Appendix Documentation (40MB)

Appendix Documentation (40MB)

Comments

Joyfield Master Plan — 7 Comments

  1. Hi, I’m am one of the owners of Xpert Fulfillment, a soon to be “non-conforming” business on M115, my major gripe with the study is that it only accounts up to 2010, which our business was currently in Frankfort and does not account for the assets that our business has provided to the community since relocating. Furthermore, the proposed commercial zone is not feasible for us because there is no real estate available that could meet our needs for future development. Unfortunately, such a change would severely limit our potential for growth and we would be forced to take our business to another township/county/state which would include layoffs of our current employees, the township would also no longer have tax revenue or employment opportunities from us. Last year alone we did over 2.5 million in sales, and are on track for an even better year this year. I strongly urge you to reconsider before you harm and hinder our businesses potential for growth.

  2. I am a business owner and farmer in Joyfield Twp. I was totaly with out words when I saw the master plan for the zoning of this twp. I can`t believe you have advised the township board and planning comm. to totaly forget the farmer NO LAND in your plan is zoned as AG. Do you really have the guts to say that you allowed them to do this. Every time you ask the planning board a question about there planning they say they were advised by Lakes to Land to do it this way so it falls on your sholders to change this wrong you have created.

    • Hi, Gary. Thank you for your comment. The Joyfield Township Master Plan includes a Future Land Use Map, which is different from a zoning map in that it provides a general land use guideline but does not implement any laws or regulations. The designation of “Rural” was selected by the Planning Commission as a means of keeping the Township much the same way in the future as it is today – farms with some properties developed for rural residential on 5 to 10 acre lots.

      The next step after the adoption of the master plan will be to work on the zoning map and text. When this process occurs, your comments regarding property zoned for AG would be appropriate and appreciated.

      The Joyfield Township Planning Commission convened a meeting with the AG property owners to get their input on the master plan and they will probably do the same when they begin to discuss zoning.

  3. Why are the heliports not shown on any of the maps in the master plan. There are two licensed heliports in Joyfield township. They are listed in the official Michigan guide to airports. Wouldn’t the presence of a heliport be a land use that can directly affect people living around it, wouldn’t health safety and welfare of residents living near it be a concern? If the zoning ordinance, which is supposed to be written to protect health safety and welfare is supposed to also follow the master plan which is the guide, why wouldn’t heliports be mentioned? Is leaving them out intentional? Out of sight, out of mind? So people forget why they were put there to start with?

    • Hi, Robert. Thanks for your comment. The heliport locations recognized by the state will be shown on the next revision of the map. Have a lovely day!

  4. Let us not forget why the heliport license applications were pursued in Joyfield Township by Betsy Evans (Planning chair), Kurt Kruger (Planning co-chair), Matt Emery (township supervisor) Jim Evans (township trustee) along with several more local co-conspirators. It was not to create some sort of a cottage industry catering to helicopters and tourism; it was a scheme hatched by an aggressive anti-wind power group to block the legitimate land use of their neighbors for a mile around this groups respective properties. Is Lakes to Land concerned? Apparently not so much; when I brought this to your attention earlier you stated, “… we certainly understand your concern. As professional planners, we view this as an issue for discussion at the planning commission meetings as we go through the process of writing Joyfield’s master plan”…Correct me if I’m wrong but I recall nothing of this matter being addressed by the commission. This is a huge issue, not because heliports are necessarily bad but because of the self-serving dishonesty and bias their creation represents from those among us who presume to be the townships’ leadership. The Lakes to Land initiative has failed the residents of Joyfield Township and is a complete disappointment.

  5. My main concern is that you state you adopted the old plan for commercial zoning, which fails to include new businesses that have developed since, as well as your dated studies do not include very current information. My other concern is that you intend to have commercial businesses move to this sector, yet if you take the size requirements of commercial businesses that are outside of this area, it would require many more acres to include them for moving to be a viable option. The 1st cornerstone is to create and retain jobs for the township, yet your zoning would cut off the feet of new successful businesses and give other businesses looking to move into the area no where to go or develop. You also state that you encourage the nodal development of light industry and commercial businesses, so do you want nodes or do you want a dedicated commercial sector that has the infrastructure to support it? Infrastructure should be concentrated on US31 AND M115. I would also like to see the suggestions from the business owners meeting added to the plan and noted where changes where made accordingly.