Public has their say at annexation hearing

By Robert Tomlinson
News Director

THREE RIVERS — The general public has now had their say in a hotly-debated proposed land annexation in Three Rivers, and the annexation’s fate now rests in the hands of the State Boundary Commission.
On Thursday, Oct. 17, the State Boundary Commission (SBC) held a public hearing at the Riviera Theatre to receive public comment on a proposed transfer of a 38-acre parcel of land in Lockport Township from the township to Three Rivers, the only opportunity for the public to comment on the annexation.
The parcel, located on Buckhorn Road just northeast of the Armstrong Park Sports Complex, is owned by Tom Lowry, the mayor of Three Rivers. Lowry is looking to annex the currently-vacant land into the city so that he can get sewer and water services from the city in order to pursue developing the property with up to 95 single-family residential lots, with proceeds going to the Three Rivers Promise. It is the lone parcel of land being considered for annexation.
“I would like to do more good for my community. I’d like to be able to develop that land into affordable housing, and I’d like to use the proceeds of that effort, and I would donate them to the Three Rivers Promise,” Lowry said during the hearing. “I’d like to do anything I can before I die to help future graduates of our school system.”
It is also a property that has been embroiled in controversy in the past year and a half. Two Public Act 425 land transfers last year involving the property, done between Lockport Township and Park Township, were ruled earlier this month by St. Joseph County Circuit Court Judge Paul Stutesman to be “null and void” due to procedural issues regarding both agreements and the fact the transfers were being used solely to block annexation.
Another part of the townships’ reasoning for the land transfers was because they are in the early stages of developing sewer service themselves, as part of a project the townships are pursuing along with other neighboring townships in both St. Joseph and Kalamazoo counties. However, it is projected to take several years for such a system to be put in place, and is currently only in the feasibility-study and funding stages.
“Realistically, it’s a minimum of 10 years away, and I can’t wait that long. I don’t want to wait that long because I don’t know if I have that long to live,” Lowry said.
Chris Patterson, a lawyer representing Lockport Township and a key player in the original 425 agreements, said during the hearing the township’s position is that Lowry can develop the housing project in the township right now.
“We’ve taken steps, particularly in our zoning ordinance to ensure something like this could work,” Patterson said. “They’re in the process of planning and constructing a wastewater facility, so I know a lot of the criteria will look at future needs, and as indicated, it will be there, even if it’s 10 years, it’s going to be available. That doesn’t stop the fact that it can be constructed tomorrow with all the necessary services in the township at the density that’s being proposed.”
Patterson also noted that the township already has water service available for the property, and that septic service can be used with the properties while the proposed wastewater treatment plant gets built.
However, Vince Duckworth, a lawyer representing Lowry, said if the property is annexed, it would be able to use a “system that is working,” that being Three Rivers’ sewer and water service.
“There are public utility services available in a community, in a city right now. Mr. Lowry, as a property owner, should be afforded an opportunity to utilize those services and not wait for a plan that there’s no financing in place. And even if there was financing that came into place for a $61 million system, it’d take at least five years to be shovel ready,” Duckworth said. “That is an unreasonable time to wait when there is a need for affordable housing now, there is a need for public sanitary sewer services now in the community.”
No formal action was taken by the SBC during the hearing; however, it is expected to take up possible approval at its next regular meeting, slated for Feb. 19, 2025 at 10 a.m. in Lansing at 611 W. Ottawa St.
The vast majority of the public comments at the meeting came from Lockport Township residents who expressed their concerns and opposition to the annexation. Many of them brought up the city’s lead pipe issues and reports of discolored water, as well as the recent sewer spill into the St. Joseph River as reasons they believed the city’s infrastructure isn’t reliable enough to take on 95 more lots. Some also accused Lowry of trying to benefit himself with the annexation, given his position as the city’s mayor, as well as noted comments he made during the annexation of the Armstrong Park Sports Complex that the city wouldn’t try another annexation. Some commenters also reiterated that Lowry can still build in Lockport Township.
Some comments also mentioned acres of undeveloped land in other 425s the city has with Lockport Township, as well as pushed back against other comments made by Duckworth about septic tank failures, saying they were still on their first septic tank and had no issues with the tank’s age. A couple of residents criticized the tie-in the proposed project has with the Three Rivers Promise scholarship fund, with one, Township Zoning Administrator Doug Kuhlman, calling it a “smokescreen,” and another, Kelly Atkinson, calling it “irrelevant.”
The few people who spoke in support of the annexation were mostly tied to Lowry – his lawyers, Duckworth and Ron VanderVeen, as well as City Manager Joe Bippus, who received a few groans from the audience when his name was called to speak. In his comments, Bippus noted the improvements the city is working on with the wastewater treatment plant, the processes the city is undertaking with lead water service pipes, and claimed that residents have “benefitted” from the Public Act 425 agreements the city has made, albeit using examples of such agreements that were made with Fabius Township, and did not mention such agreements with Lockport.
A few citizens criticized the logistics of the hearing, noting lighting issues in the Riviera Theatre and accessibility for those with disabilities, as well as alleged issues with certified letters notifying surrounding residents of the meeting not being sent and public notices potentially not being published in a timely manner. The location itself was also criticized because it was not one of three locations initially considered for the hearing, those being the Three Rivers Public Library, A Place in Time, and the St. Joseph County Commission on Aging’s Rivers Enrichment Center.
Robin Beltramini, the chair of the SBC, noted during the hearing that the SBC does not choose the location of where to meet for these types of hearings.
“We come where people tell us to come,” Beltramini said. “The townships and the city are both offered an opportunity to give us a place, so they need to keep that in mind with their people. That’s all. It’s just, we didn’t pick this venue.”
Beltramini also confirmed following the meeting it was Lowry, the applicant, who chose the location for the meeting.
In the end, Beltramini said she thought the hearing went well.
“It was a good public hearing, because people spoke, they gave us what they wanted us to know, and valid points were made on both sides,” Beltramini said following the hearing. “We’ll have to have a lot of good contemplation.”
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.