A controversial mixed-use development previously proposed for Leland’s downtown area is officially dead, thanks to a recent court ruling. Joel Peterson, the developer behind the proposed “William and Main” project in Leland, confirmed to the Leelanau Ticker that he will now pursue alternate plans for the land.

Peterson, primarily a custom home builder with his business J. Peterson Homes, brought the William and Main project to the Leland Township Planning Commission last summer, seeking approval for a planned urban development (PUD) application. Under his proposal, Peterson would have built a three-story, 11,590-square-foot mixed-use building at the corner of William and Main streets in downtown Leland. The building would have added four upper-floor condominiums to Leland’s housing stock, along with four commercial/retail units on the ground floor. Had it been approved, William and Main would have stood at 33 feet – taller than any existing structure in Leland.

William and Main’s proposed uses are allowed by right in the C-1 commercial zone the building would have occupied, and the 33-foot height is technically permissible under township zoning, which caps commercial buildings at 35 feet. Peterson initially told the Leelanau Ticker that he and his team had “carefully followed the Leland Township Zoning Ordinance” in designing the building and felt confident that the planning commission would recognize the project as a use by right and “pass the PUD accordingly.” Use by right typically means that planning commissioners are required to approve a project if it meets zoning requirements.

The William and Main proposal immediately drew the ire of some locals, including former Leland Township Planning Commission chair Keith Ashley, who led an opposition effort against the development. While Ashley conceded to the Leelanau Ticker last August that William and Main was permissible in terms of use and height, he argued that what he characterized as the “very modern” design of the project could be countered on the grounds of village character.

“In the zoning ordinance, a number of places use the word ‘character’ when it comes to describing what is expected from a development,” Ashley said at the time. “The master plan references character, as well. In my mind and the minds of others, this project doesn't meet the character of Leland.” In particular, Ashley took issue with William and Main’s building façade and how the design would have put the building “right out at the sidewalk” on Main Street. “If they redid the façade of this building to make it look like the rest of the stuff that’s in Leland, I wouldn't have any opposition to it,” he said, suggesting William and Main should be more in line with Leland’s overall “quaint old village” look and feel.

Planning commissioners ultimately sided with Ashley, voting 5-0 against Peterson’s PUD. In a findings-of-fact document prepared ahead of that denial vote last December, the planning commission “found that the proposed development violates the objectives, intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance through its mass and character, and lack of adaptability and suitability for the area in which it is proposed.”

In the wake of the decision, Peterson appealed the matter to the township’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) – and warned that he’d take the township to court if the ZBA reaffirmed the planning commission vote. Speaking to the Leelanau Ticker in December, Peterson argued that character “is so subjective” and that Leland Township “doesn't define what they're looking for in character, so basically it’s left to individual interpretation.”

“Being a use by right, we don't have to meet anybody's definition of character because there is no definition of character,” Peterson concluded.

The ZBA did ultimately uphold the planning commission’s decision, and Peterson made good on his threat to take the township to court over the dispute. Michigan law states that parties who disagree with a ZBA’s decision are entitled to a judicial review of that decision in the local circuit court. In an interview with the Leelanau Ticker in February, Peterson expressed confidence in the judicial review process, describing his attorney’s arguments on the matter as “pretty devastating.”

Last week, though, William and Main hit yet another roadblock, with Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th District Court denying Peterson’s appeal.

Reached for a statement on Elsenheimer’s decision, Peterson confirms that he doesn’t plan to take the William and Main concept any further.

“Unfortunately, the judge sided with the township even though I thought we had a very strong argument,” Peterson tells the Leelanau Ticker. “The lot [at the corner of William and Main streets] consists of two platted residential parcels, so the plan all along has been to split the property and build two village homes if we couldn’t construct the mixed-use building.”

While Peterson says he would have rather moved forward with a larger project to bring more housing and more retail space to Leland, he’s not willing to take on the cost and uncertainty of further appeals.

“As a builder/developer, we know the risks going in, so rather than appeal this ruling and spend another year in court, we’ll move forward with plan B,” Peterson concludes.

This kerfuffle isn’t Peterson’s first clash with Leland Township officials. Nearly a decade ago, Peterson pursued a redevelopment plan for the then-blighted Leland courthouse property – a concept that would have built a small cottage community on the land. The Leland Township Planning Commission denied his PUD proposal. Ashley, who was chair of the planning commission at the time, voted against the project, citing public pushback against the development due to worries about small-town character. Peterson subsequently withdrew his offer to buy the courthouse property, expressing frustration with what he said was a “dysfunctional” approval process for developers.