Robin Beltramini, the chair of the State Boundary Commission, discusses the petition filed by Tom Lowry to annex his 38 acres of land from Lockport Township to Three Rivers during a meeting in Lansing Wednesday.
By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
LANSING — The State of Michigan gave a victory to Lockport Township Wednesday in a land debate that has lasted for nearly two years.
In a 4-1 vote, the State Boundary Commission voted to deny a petition from Tom Lowry to annex 38 acres of land he owns on Buckhorn Road just outside of Three Rivers from Lockport Township into the city.
The vote means the land, which Lowry had wanted to annex for a future housing development, will stay in Lockport Township and not be handed over to the city. Voting to deny the petition were chair Robin Beltramini, board members Linda Preston and Richard Datema, as well as special St. Joseph County appointee Savannah Bohanon. Special St. Joseph County appointee Frederick Pattee was the lone vote to approve the petition.
Speaking on their no votes during the meeting, board members cited land the city has not utilized under previous Public Act 425 agreements with Lockport as one of the reasons to vote against the petition, as well as water services already being available through Lockport Township at the property.
“There are many other properties within the City of Three Rivers that were transferred by 425 and that have not been utilized to their capacity,” Preston said. “There’s water available around the property from the township, and the amount of investment that would be needed to produce what is described, I don’t know that the investment outweighs the outcome.”
“The 425 issue enters in; there’s water available. Services are one of the major checkpoints we go through, and I just don’t see the need for this action to take place,” Datema said.
“It can be developed in concurrence with both the township, the city and the county master land use plan as residential, as a fair-sized buffer for the urban rural development in the city, and septics are working these days,” Beltramini said.
“I believe [Lockport’s] infrastructure would benefit and can handle it,” Bohanon said.
Conversely, Pattee said in explaining his vote to approve the petition that the outcome of the housing development would be beneficial for the city.
“The property that is involved is owned by one family and has been for a long time. The outcome would enhance both the long-term plans for Three Rivers and the state, and the properties,” Pattee said.
Wednesday’s decision marks a major milestone in the two-year-long battle over the property’s jurisdiction, and represents one of the first major wins for the township in both the saga over the property and in terms of land annexation attempts from the city as a whole.
Lowry, who is also the mayor of Three Rivers, had initially requested a Public Act 425 agreement between the township and the city back in March 2023 to bring the property into the city so it can receive city water and sewer for a housing development he wanted to undertake. However, in April 2023, Lockport Township agreed to a 425 with Park Township to transfer the property from Lockport to Park in part to prevent a transfer to the city, to which Lowry filed a referendum petition shortly after to try to bring the 425 to a vote. The referendum was never placed on a ballot in Lockport.
In November 2023, the two townships agreed to a second 425 agreement, this time involving Lowry’s property and 84 other parcels surrounding it in Lockport as a way to buoy a possible sewer project currently being proposed by a number of local townships and prevent the Lowry property from being transferred to the city. However, the first 425 agreement was not rescinded before the second transfer was agreed to; the rescindment occurred a month after the second 425 was agreed to.
Both 425s were challenged in court by Lowry in December 2023 due to procedural issues regarding the referendum petition and objections to the reasoning behind the agreements. After a preliminary injunction was granted in March 2024, which allowed Lowry to petition the State Boundary Commission for annexation, in October 2024, 45th Circuit Court Judge Paul Stutesman ruled that both 425 agreements were invalid, but did not issue a permanent injunction.
In August 2024, the State Boundary Commission took up Lowry’s petition for the first time, setting a public hearing which occurred in October 2024 at the Riviera Theatre. The majority of commenters, almost all of whom were from Lockport Township, objected to Lowry annexing the property, citing the city’s lead pipe and water issues, high-profile sewer spills, and accusations that Lowry was trying to benefit himself with the annexation. The undeveloped land in other 425s was also brought up during the public hearing.
Beltramini said in an interview following the meeting the public hearing was essential to the board making the decision they did.
“I think the written information we were given, as well as the public comments that were made, helped us flesh out some of the local issues,” Beltramini said. “The local participation was strong.”
Lockport Township Zoning Administrator Doug Kuhlman said in public comment that he was pleased with the commission’s decision.
“I obviously think it was the correct decision. We do have water available, he could be building right now in Lockport Township,” Kuhlman said. “It’s been a long road for us, but it’s refreshing to know that we can continue to move forward without the additional land loss.”
Kuhlman concluded his comment by saying the township is looking into seeking more land for the water supply and possibly another water tower to “service other communities,” as well as closing on property to “get our sewer project moving forward.”
Conversely, Ron VanderVeen, one of the lawyers representing Lowry, who was also in attendance during Wednesday’s meeting, disagreed with the result, claiming the commission didn’t seem to take one particular factor into account in their decision.
“I think the commission just doesn’t get it. This issue is not over water, the issue is the lack of sewer, and the lack of ability to develop without a public sewer system,” VanderVeen said.
However, Beltramini said after the meeting she didn’t believe the sewer was an issue with the petition.
“The township is growing with more homesteads being added faster than the city, and the township requires septic, so I don’t think it’s an issue,” Beltramini said.
VanderVeen said he and Lowry “will have to talk about” appealing the commission’s decision, which Beltramini said after the meeting would have to go through the courts if they choose to do so.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
