Youth for Christ is back on the planning commission agenda in Leland Township this week – albeit, in what Planning Commission Chairperson Lee Cory describes as a “housekeeping matter” that “won’t change the decision” the commission made last month.

On April 15, after months of deliberation, the Leland Township Planning Commission voted to deny a special land use permit (SLUP) that would have allowed Leland LightHouse, a youth Christian ministry affiliated with the multi-national Youth for Christ (YFC) movement, to set up a private clubhouse in Leland’s commercial district. Planning commissioners determined the club use to be inconsistent with township zoning.

Nevertheless, YFC appears once more on the agenda for the meeting scheduled for this evening (Wednesday) at 5pm at the Leland Township Library.

The commission will consider a request by legal counsel “to amend and clarify the Findings and Record in support of the Planning Commission’s denial of the special land use permit application of Apollos Properties, LLC on behalf of Youth for Christ...” Apollos Properties owns the property at 110 North Lake Street (pictured) that had been planned for the YFC/Leland LightHouse clubhouse.

Cory assures The Ticker the planning commission has no intention of reconsidering or overturning its decision from last month.

“It sounds complicated, but it's really just a simple clarification of the language of the ordinance,” Cory says of the agenda item. “It should be non-controversial. All of the lawyers have discussed this and decided that it's something that would be a good thing to do. It won't affect the decision at all, and it shouldn't affect anything going forward other than simply to clarify the ordinance for anybody that has a question about it.”

Attorney Tom Grier – who prepared the findings of fact documents commissioners used to inform their decision last month – explained the situation in a letter to the planning commission dated May 4.

“By way of background, after the Planning Commission’s meeting on April 15, 2026, Mr. Robert Parker, the attorney for the applicant, sent an email to me asking for a clarification of the Findings regarding the legislative history of the 2009-02 amendments to the C-1 and C2 commercial districts under Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance,” Grier wrote.

110 North Lake Street sits in a C-1 commercial zone, and Grier’s initial findings of fact wrestled with the question of whether private clubs were even allowed as special land uses in such areas. Grier’s findings explored the history of zoning changes, adopted in 2009 (“the 2009-02 amendments”), which he deemed relevant to the consideration of a club use.

“Prior to the 2009-02 amendment, the Zoning Ordinance provided that: ‘Standard restaurants, clubs and other establishments which provide food or drink for consumption by persons seated within a building that is not part of a drive-in, and may also provide dancing and entertainment’ were treated as special land uses in both the C-1 and the C-2 zoning districts,” Grier wrote in his findings of fact.

The 2009 zoning amendments reclassified “standard restaurants” as a use-by-right in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, leaving “Clubs and other establishments which provide food or drink…” in the zoning ordinance as special land uses. Based on this amendment history, Grier argued the SLUP-allowable definition of a “club” was “welded” to the topic of restaurant uses and intended as a way “to allow ‘private’ or ‘club-based’ restaurants within the C-1 and C-2 districts,” such as a potential “yacht club restaurant near the waterfront.”

That interpretation played a key role in the planning commission’s decision to deny the Apollos Properties SLUP, because it supported Grier’s belief that the type of club Apollos was seeking to bring to 110 North Lake Street was not allowed in the C-1 district at all, either as a use-by-right or a special land use.

But in Grier’s May 4 letter, he wrote that “Mr. Parker’s inquiry raised a question about the accuracy of that part of the Findings.” Specifically, Grier admitted to mischaracterizing the zoning language about “Clubs and other establishments which provide food or drink…” as “entirely new, and just added in 2009.” In actuality, that language “pre-dated the 2009-02 amendment with respect to the C-1 zoning district,” and was simply the remnant of the zoning rule that identified “standard restaurants, clubs and other establishments which provide food or drink…” as special land uses.

What does that mix-up mean for the YFC permit? Potentially not much.

“In my view the proposed amendment will have no material aspect on the conclusory aspects of the Findings,” Grier wrote. The attorney has now prepared a revised fact-finding document that clarifies this “legislative history” of the zoning ordinance. Tonight’s meeting will give planning commissioners the opportunity to adopt that amended version in place of the one they adopted last month.

Parker disagrees with Grier that the error shouldn't change things. In a letter submitted to the planning commission, he wrote: “[Apollos Properties] contends that the corrected legislative history compels the Commission to reverse its earlier denial.” Parker’s letter also argues Grier is misreading the zoning ordinance, and encourages planning commissioners to take a broader view of club uses than just club-based restaurants.

“Without a comma after ‘other establishments’ and before ‘which’ the clause ‘which provide food or drink…’ is a restrictive clause only for the noun ‘other establishments,’” Parker wrote of the zoning language. “Because there is no comma after the final noun ‘other establishments’ – which would signal that all three uses (nouns) are being modified – only ‘other establishments’ is being modified.”