Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, August 8, 2023 – Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes City Chambers, City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair William Darbee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL Present: William Darbee, Jan Rise, Chris Greenleaf, Larry Elliott, Charles Congdon Absent: None. Others: Staff Liaison Anthony Dier, Community Development Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the June 13, 2023, meeting minutes as presented, by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearings Z 23-02 – 600 Adams – Margeaux Appold & Matt Elsesser o/b James R. Wright The appellant is requesting a use variance from Section 122-152 that would, if granted, authorize the establishment of a single-family home and a dwelling located on the first floor of a commercial or office building within the C-3, Central Business zoning district. W. Darbee noted as a “super variance” it would require a minimum of four votes in favor of the variance. Present: Matt Elsesser, 2171 Center Ave, Bay City on behalf of James Wright. Mr. Elsesser thought that there was potential to bring in added attraction to the downtown area by using the building as a single-family dwelling to allow for short term rentals. W. Darbee asked if they would only be using the property for residential purposes. Mr. Elsesser confirmed they would. It was undetermined the last time it had been used residentially. The current owner purchased it in 2017 and has not had any tenants. J. Rise knew the property was for sale and asked if he knew how long it had been on the market. Mr. Elsesser replied since May. W. Darbee asked if any of the past uses for the building were known other than being vacant. Mr. Elsesser replied according to the current owner it had not been actively used after it was purchased 6 years ago. The owner did now know of its prior uses but thought it had been an insurance office at one time. Mr. Elsesser explained he had found history online of it being various things, including a title company but it was originally a residential unit that was converted; however, he did not know when. He explained the Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, August 8, 2023 – Regular Meeting layout is very similar to a two-bedroom house with kitchen, two bathrooms and basement and would be very functional as a residential property more so than commercial office space. W. Darbee thought the yard around the building was all cement. Mr. Elsesser confirmed it was pretty much a parking lot and that the neighboring church’s parking lot butts up to the property’s parking lot. J. Rise stated there was one entrance and asked if it shared a curb cut with Saginaw Underwriters. Mr. Elsesser answered that it was the church. He added Hopevale Church was next to the building and next to the church used to be Bay County Abstract, now a home care agency. W. Darbee asked how much of the Adams Street frontage belonged to the property. A. Dier looked the property up on the County GIS website. The property has 50 feet of frontage and 100 feet of depth with an alleyway off of 7th Street and a parking lot immediately adjacent. Being a corner lot, it faces Adams Street with additional frontage on 7th Street. The current owner of the property also owns the building directly across the alleyway with the adjacent parking lot and building owned by 610 Development, LLC. W. Darbee wanted to know if the property ran all the way back to the alleyway and where the location of the parking lot, side-property lot line was in comparison to the location of the church. A. Dier confirmed the lot depth ended at the alley and indicated the approximate property lines on the County GIS site on the overhead screen. Mr. Elsesser commented the direction for the C-3 business district is to support tourism and recreational activities and believed the property would allow them to do that. L. Elliott inquired what short term rentals meant if it would only be for a week or two. Mr. Elsesser answered it would not be for a year, the intent would be for under 30 days but would need to verify with the state as far tenants’ rights. Staff clarified the request for the use-variance is for a residential, single-family dwelling unit on the first floor. Currently the zoning ordinance doesn't clarify between short- or long-term rentals or ownership versus tenancy. J. Rise asked if C-3 or residential setbacks would apply. She wondered if seating areas in the yard would be allowed right up to the sidewalk with a fence as it does for commercial property. A. Dier replied it could potentially. All the variance request is doing is adding an additional use into C-3 for this property. It would be subject to C-3 setback requirements other than the ones that are superseded by single- and two-family sections of the ordinance and would apply for most setback regulations in the ordinance. For example, C-3 is permissive with its front yard parking and accessory building setback requirements, but residential fencing setbacks would apply. There were no other questions. Motion to close public comment and go into discussion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by L. Elliott. Motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION and FINDING OF FACT: The ZBA discussed each standard as follows: Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, August 8, 2023 – Regular Meeting 1. The property subject to the request cannot be used for any of the uses permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. J. Rise: She was having difficulty seeing where it could not be used for any other purpose and didn’t believe enough information had been provided to demonstrate an economic return was improbable with its current zoning. It was only speculation on the reason why it is vacant or when it was last occupied. They don’t have the facts of how long it’s been empty or what has been done to rent it. W. Darbee: He agreed with J. Rise. He just didn’t feel like the location met this requirement. It’s a heavily traveled area and while there are houses on M-25, this particular one has no setback from either Adams Street or 7th Street and seems like it would be out of place. It is also covered in cement with no grass. He would like to see an office of some nature there. He asked staff if it was known how long the property was zoned as a commercial property. A. Dier did not know. He believed C-3 was included in the last two iterations of the ordinance but didn’t know how far out it extended from downtown. If it wasn't C-3 before it could have been a different commercial zoning designation or could have gained commercial designation and still utilized as a residence up to a certain point. It might also have had legal non-conforming status or was a commercial designation that allowed single family such as C-1 or C-2A. An extensive property history search would be needed since the city does not keep business licenses or track changes of tenancy. C. Greenleaf: He disagreed with J. Rise. The property has been vacant for many years. It has been on the market on and off for many years with no return on a sale for a commercial building. He felt it would have been occupied within the last five or six years if it was a desired location for commercial purposes. More Airbnb type of accommodations will be cropping up with the shift of downtown and the conversion of commercial buildings into condos. He suggested they could make a motion to adjourn to allow the appellant to obtain facts from the owners and business occupancy records from the city. A. Dier pointed out the city did not have a business license program and would not have records. C. Greenleaf commented information could be obtained in the real estate market and the MOS for the city, to provide records of vacancy. L. Elliott: Though he liked the idea, he was having an issue with it meeting the requirement. No where in the letter written by James Wright (owner) is it mentioned that he’s tried to market it and not been successful. He is unsure of how to get around saying that the property cannot be used for its intended purposes in C-3. 2. The need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as its odd shape, extreme narrowness, topography, and other physical features or constraints. L. Elliott: Other than the fact that it was rezoned at some point to C-3 there's nothing unique about this property that he could see. It was obviously initially built as a residence but then used as Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, August 8, 2023 – Regular Meeting commercial. He determined being rezoned to C-3 made it unique to that property because it was in fact a residence in the past. J. Rise: There's nothing unique about this property that makes it qualify for the variance the way the standard reads other than where it's situated. 3. Whether granting a use variance will alter the character of the surrounding area. L. Elliott: He didn’t believe it would since the neighborhood includes both commercial and residential areas. 4. Whether the unnecessary hardship asserted by the requesting party as justification for granting a use variance is self-created by an action taken by the appellant or predecessor in title. L. Elliott: He did not believe it was as the appellants did not rezone the property to C-3. J. Rise: The appellant has not presented substantial evidence of hardship indicating the property is essentially valueless at this point if only used for C-3 permitted uses. W. Darbee: Considered the property valueless because it’s been unoccupied for a number of years. DECISION: Motion to deny the requested use variance based on discussion, made by W. Darbee. Discussion on how many votes were needed to deny the request took place. Only a majority vote of three is needed to pass the motion to deny the request. Seconded by J. Rise. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is in favor of the motion to deny the request. L. Elliott: Yes; C. Greenleaf: No; J. Rise: Yes; C. Congdon: No; W. Darbee: Yes 3 Yes; 2 No Motion carried to deny the use-variance request. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS A. Dier stated there were no agenda items at that time for the September meeting. He had not heard anything regarding budget items but would check and send out an email. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn by C. Greenleaf, seconded by L. Elliott. Meeting ended at 7:27 p.m. Prepared by Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4