Land use planning plays a vital role in Bath Township, as it serves as the basis for implementing policies and regulations in order to guide and control development. The Planning Department’s responsibilities include developing and implementing the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to apply public policy to future land use and enforce development standards.

The Planning Department then provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees to help carry out strategic land use and planning decisions in the Township. The Department also oversees processing applications for site plans and provides guidance to residents and developers.

The Comprehensive Development Plan lays out long-range land use policies that aid in guiding and controlling development in the Township. The Zoning Ordinance is intrinsically linked to the Comprehensive Plan as it contains regulations to enforce the goals, policies and objectives of the plan. The Township is split into seven zoning districts: Public Lands or Open Space, Development, High Density Residential, High Density Development, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Rural. Within each of these zoning districts are regulations for appropriate uses, size of the land and structures, setbacks, buffers, etc.

View Bath Township Zoning Map

View Bath Township’s Zoning Ordinance

Bath Township Master Plan

Planning Department

Brian Shorkey, Director
Email: bshorkey@bathtownship.us

Hours: 8:00 am – 5:00 pm, Monday – Friday

Bath Charter Township
14480 Webster Road
P.O. Box 247
Bath, Michigan 48808

Phone: (517) 641-6728

Fax: (517) 641-4170

The Planning Commission conducted a survey which was designed to gauge the Township residents’ willingness to opt in to the state’s new medical marihuana regulations, or MMFLA. The survey asked overall support, as well as support for each of the five facilities. A total of 256 respondents took the survey and the results are summarized here.

 

Question 1: What is your age category?

254 respondents answered this question.

29% of the respondents were between the ages of 46 and 59 or age 60 or over.

 

Question 2: How long have you lived in Bath Township?

253 respondents answered this question.

Most of the respondents, 36%, have lived in Bath Township for over 20 years.

92% of the respondents are Bath Township residents.

 

Question 3: What is your affiliation with Bath Township?

253 respondents answered this question.

The overwhelming number of respondents, 85%, are Bath Township residents.

 

Question 4: Do you oppose Bath Township opting in to the new medical marihuana law for all five types of facilities allowed by MMFLA?

253 respondents answered this question.

104 of the respondents, 41%, oppose opting into MMFLA.

Those respondents were automatically skipped to the last question of the survey.

 

Question 5: How many grower facilities would you support?

142 respondents answered this question.

3 respondents do not support grower facilities in Bath Township.

47% would support 1 to 5 grower facilities, while 42% support grower facilities without any limit.

When considering the entire data set, 54% of the total respondents support grower facilities in Bath Township.

 

Question 6: Should grower facilities be separated from other land uses?

134 respondents answered this question.

80% of the respondents do not believe that grower facilities need to be separated from other land uses.

 

Question 7: What should be the minimum separation between grower facilities, between zero to 2,000 feet?

117 respondents answered this question.

The average response was 868 feet.

34 respondents answered 10 feet or less, while 26 answered 2,000 feet.

 

Question 8: If you support grower facilities, where would you like to see them located?

This was an open ended question and 86 respondents answered.

 

Question 9: How many processing facilities would you support?

138 respondents answered this question.

4 respondents do not support processing facilities in Bath Township.

48% would support 1 to 5 processing facilities, while 40% support processing facilities without any limit.

When considering the entire data set, 52% of the total respondents support processing facilities in Bath Township.

 

Question 10: Should processing facilities be separated from other land uses?

122 respondents answered this question.

83% of the respondents do not believe that processing facilities need to be separated from other land uses.

 

Question 11: What should be the minimum separation between processing facilities, between zero to 2,000 feet?

99 respondents answered this question.

The average response was 875 feet.

26 respondents answered 10 feet or less, while 24 answered 2,000 feet.

 

Question 12: If you support processing facilities, where would you like to see them located?

This was an open ended question and 79 respondents answered.

 

Question 13: How many safety compliance facilities would you support?

126 respondents answered this question.

8 respondents do not support safety compliance facilities in Bath Township.

50% would support 1 to 5 safety compliance facilities, while 37% support safety compliance facilities without any limit.

When considering the entire data set, 46% of the total respondents support safety compliance facilities in Bath Township.

 

Question 14: Should safety compliance facilities be separated from other land uses?

104 respondents answered this question.

87% of the respondents do not believe that safety compliance facilities need to be separated from other land uses.

 

Question 15: What should be the minimum separation between safety compliance facilities, between zero to 2,000 feet?

79 respondents answered this question.

The average response was 855 feet.

26 respondents answered 10 feet or less, while 18 answered 2,000 feet.

 

Question 16: If you support safety compliance facilities, where would you like to see them located?

This was an open ended question and 64 respondents answered.

 

Question 17: How many provisioning center (dispensaries) facilities would you support?

121 respondents answered this question.

7 respondents do not support provisioning center facilities in Bath Township.

51% would support 1 to 5 provisioning center facilities, while 31% support grower facilities without any limit.

When considering the entire data set, 45% of the total respondents support provisioning center facilities in Bath Township.

 

Question 18: Should provisioning center facilities be separated from other land uses?

106 respondents answered this question.

76% of the respondents do not believe that provisioning center facilities need to be separated from other land uses.

 

Question 19: What should be the minimum separation between provisioning center facilities, between zero to 2,000 feet?

85 respondents answered this question.

The average response was 887 feet.

27 respondents answered 10 feet or less, while 20 answered 2,000 feet.

 

Question 20: If you support provisioning center facilities, where would you like to see them located?

This was an open ended question and 69 respondents answered.

 

Question 21: How many secure transporter facilities would you support?

110 respondents answered this question.

11 respondents do not support secure transporter facilities in Bath Township.

45% would support 1 to 5 secure transporter facilities, while 37% support secure transporter facilities without any limit.

When considering the entire data set, 39% of the total respondents support secure transporter facilities in Bath Township.

 

Question 22: Should secure transporter facilities be separated from other land uses?

92 respondents answered this question.

83% of the respondents do not believe that secure transporter facilities need to be separated from other land uses.

 

Question 23: What should be the minimum separation between secure transporter facilities, between zero to 2,000 feet?

72 respondents answered this question.

The average response was 813 feet.

25 respondents answered 10 feet or less, while 16 answered 2,000 feet.

 

Question 24: If you support secure transporter facilities, where would you like to see them located?

This was an open ended question and 52 respondents answered.

 

Question 25: Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?

This was an open ended question and 80 respondents answered.

Capital Improvements Planning

The Michigan Planning Enabling Act stipulates that Planning Commissions in Townships which operate public water or sewer systems “shall annually prepare a capital improvements program of public structures and improvements” which support the adopted Comprehensive Development Plan.

A capital improvements plan is a budgeting tool for planning a community’s capital expenditures. This tool is intended to coordinate community planning efforts, financial capacity, and physical development. The plan is composed of two parts, a capital budget and a capital program. The capital budget is the upcoming year’s spending for capital projects. The capital improvements program is a plan for capital expenditures that extends five years beyond the capital budget.

Capital improvement projects are currently defined as permanent, physical or system improvements that cost at least $20,000, or significant equipment purchases in excess of $20,000 and add value to the township. Examples of capital improvement projects are parks, government facilities, roads, and sewers.

2018-2023 Capital Improvement Plan
For Public Hearing at Planning Commission on September 11, 2018

Capital Improvements Planning

The Michigan Planning Enabling Act (Act 33 of 2008) states that Township Planning Commissions that operate water or sewer systems “shall annually prepare a capital improvements program of public structures and improvements” which support the adopted Comprehensive Development Plan.

A capital improvements plan is a blueprint for planning a community’s capital expenditures. It coordinates community planning, financial capacity, and physical development. The plan is composed of two parts, a capital budget and a capital program. The capital budget is the upcoming year’s spending for capital projects, while the capital improvements program is a plan for capital expenditures that extends five years beyond the capital budget (six year total).

Projects included cost in excess of $30,000, and cover public investments which result in the creation of a fixed asset (parks, government facilities, expansion of public water/sewer, etc.), rather than requests which could be associated with maintenance of existing assets.

2017 Capital Improvements Plan
Presented to Board of Trustees on August 21, 2017

Non-motorized Plan 2017

Approved by the Board of Trustees April 16, 2018