Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – 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, Douglas Rise. Others: Staff Liaison Anthony Dier; Terry Moultane, Planning & Zoning Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES C. Greenleaf moved to approve the January 9, 2024, meeting minutes as presented, seconded by J. Rise. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Case Z 24-01 – 1021 Broadway Ave. – Torey Jackson 1. The appellant is requesting a use variance from Sec. 122-152 that would, if granted, authorize the establishment of a motor vehicle repair garage in the C-1, Neighborhood Business zoning district. Motor vehicle repair garages are not permitted in the C-1 Neighborhood Business district but are permitted by Special Use Approval in the C-2-A and C-3 zoning districts and permitted in the C-2-B zoning district. The appellant must obtain a use variance from C-1 Neighborhood Business zoning district regulations to establish a motor vehicle repair garage. 2. The appellant is requesting a use variance from Sec. 122-487(f) that would, if granted, authorize motor vehicle repair activities to occur on-site outside of an enclosed building. Sec. 122-487(f) requires all activities at motor vehicle repair garages, except those required to be performed at the fuel pump, to be carried on inside an enclosed building. 3. The appellant is requesting a non-use variance from Sec. 122-487(a) requiring a minimum lot area of 14,000 square feet to establish a motor vehicle repair garage. 4. The appellant is requesting a non-use variance from Sec. 122-487(b) requiring a minimum lot frontage of 140 feet to establish a motor vehicle repair garage. Representative(s): Torey Jackson, Owner & Applicant. Mr. Jackson explained he would not be allowed to continue to operate his tire shop with how the property was currently zoned. The former Jamie’s party store had sat vacant and in disrepair for many years. It was not an entirely enclosed structure and he had converted it into a tire shop. Before he opened, he had inquired about a business license which he was informed was not required, however, he was told an electrical inspection was required to turn on the power. It had been performed and approved and he thought everything was good to go. It was not until after the City received a complaint from a disgruntled customer that he learned the property did not have the correct zoning designation for his business. Mr. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – Regular Meeting Jackson commented the neighborhood welcomes him and he receives a good amount of business from them. Mr. Jackson stated he had a plan to address the issues but needed the variances to move forward. He currently has 100 feet of frontage and had purchased the adjoining property to combine with in order to meet the 140-ft frontage requirement for auto repair, but there is an issue with the adjoining property being residential. To address the issue of performing work outside, he was having architectural plans drawn up for enclosing the awning on the drive-thru portion of the building. In response to C. Greenleaf, Mr. Jackson stated he had been open for three years after purchasing the property in 2020. He said there was another business doing almost the identical thing on the adjacent corner and he didn’t think any more of it with having had the electrical inspection approved through the Building Department. L. Elliott inquired if the combination of both properties would alleviate the need for a non-use variance. T. Moultane explained a decision to approve the use variances would first be needed and then a case would have to be made for rezoning the residential parcel. In response to L. Elliott and C. Greenlealf, Mr. Jackson answered he needed the use variance because of the complaint and citation for performing outside work; he just wanted to be in compliance. He did not have the architectural plans to present to the board. The drawings were still in progress; he should have them the following week. In response to W. Darbee’s clarification request regarding the timing of events, Mr. Jackson answered he purchased the building in 2020 and had the required electrical inspection to verify it was safe to restore power after being off for six or seven years. He then opened for business in May of 2021. C. Greenleaf asked if Mr. Jackson had told the City what type of business he was opening. Mr. Jackson replied he had brought in a business plan when he applied for the electrical permit. A. Dier clarified an electrical service inspection is required to have power turned back on. There is no zoning compliance done as part of that. A formal building inspection was not performed by the building official, nor or any discussion held with the zoning department. It was an electrical permit pulled to restore service. Mr. Jackson stated he had asked if a tire shop would be ok at that location. He claimed he was told it looked like everything was a go, as long as he got “this, this, and this”. C. Greenleaf inquired if there was any documentation with his encounter with the City. Mr. Jackson replied he did not have any, but that it should be on file at the time he pulled the permit; he did not know with whom he had spoken to. Staff did not have any record of it. A. Dier noted that he had not been employed with the City at that time. T. Moultane had established a timeline as far as dates. Property was purchased May of 2020; first complaint letter received in November 2022 and first violation letter sent out November/December 2022. No action was taken from an enforcement standpoint until the citation was issued on December 6, 2023. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – Regular Meeting A court hearing was held February 13, 2024, with the court waiting on the ZBA’s decision, and then the filing deadline for that night’s ZBA meeting was March 9th. Mr. Jackson explained he had been communicating with T. Moultane after receiving the citation and a plan had been formulated to resolve the situation. In response to W. Darbee, T. Moultane confirmed the Planning & Zoning Department was not aware of the situation until November 2022, at which time letters were sent out first and then ultimately the citation. L. Elliott wondered why Mr. Jackson had not indicated any unique circumstances particular to the property on the application, which is a requirement for a use variance under Standard #2, and that he couldn’t approve it like that. Mr. Jackson answered there were no unique circumstances peculiar to the property that he could think of other than it was built for its original use, which had an awning, and not a closed-in area for auto repair. W. Darbee invited public comment. Public Comment: 1. Jeff – owner of the property next door. Jeff felt the City needed more businesses, especially in the south end and hoped it would be taken into consideration to not lose potential tax revenue, business, and employer. Email/Phone Comments 1. Ted Jeviks, 1116 Broadway – was fine with tires, but opposed to vehicle repair. 2. Concerned Citizen – had questions about the purchase of the property with having improper zoning for the business and running a garage without a door and a garage. He wanted to know if we are at a point where we just ask for forgiveness, and why it took four years to recognize the business was not an allowed use for that zoning. C. Greenleaf moved to close public comment and open discussion, seconded by L. Elliott. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION and FINDING OF FACT: C. Greenleaf did not feel enough information had been provided for the case. J. Rise felt granting the use variances would essentially be rezoning the property. W. Darbee agreed. Discussion took place. W. Darbee felt they should make a motion for denial, recommending the rezoning requests go before the Planning Commission. J. Rise felt the property would be ineligible for a use variance due to not meeting Standards #1 and #2. L. Elliot agreed with W. Darbee. He also felt it should be addressed by the Planning Commission. He did not think there was enough information to meet the requirements to approve. C. Greenleaf agreed with L. Elliott. DECISION: Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – Regular Meeting Based on the Zoning Board of Appeals discussion of the case, L. Elliott made a motion to deny the variance with the recommendation that this be brought to the Planning Commission. There was clarification from J. Rise and W. Darbee regarding the use variances and the numbers. A. Dier clarified use variances vs. non-use variances and the motions necessary. W. Darbee modified the motion to specify use variances #1 and #2 as part of this motion. C. Greenleaf seconded the motion. D. Rise asked if the intent was to have a recommendation that the case go before the Planning Commission for consideration of a rezoning. L. Elliott confirmed it was. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is in favor of the motion to deny requests #1 and #2. 5 Yes; 0 No. Motion carried unanimously to deny requests #1 and #2. W. Darbee asked if the remaining variances were moot. A. Dier stated the variances were separate requests. J. Rise asked if the requests for the non-use variances could be postponed in the event they are needed after a rezoning. A. Dier said they could be postponed to a specific meeting date or tabled and brought back at a later meeting. If the properties are rezoned and combined to a proper zoning designation and combined, the variances will not be needed. W. Darbee, A. Dier, and L. Elliott discussed denying vs. tabling the requests based on the rezoning outcome and Planning Commission action. Staff and the board discussed meeting dates and Planning Commission and City Commission procedures. L. Elliott moved to table the request without a further date, pending decision of the Planning Commission and City Commission. D. Rise seconded. L. Elliott clarified the motion was for non-use variance items #3 and #4. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is in favor of the motion to table requests #3 and #4. 5 Yes; 0 No. Motion carried unanimously to table requests #3 and #4. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – Regular Meeting • An update was requested by W. Darbee for his per diem request. T. Moultane replied the City was in the middle of the annual budget process and the budget had been presented to city administration for review – which did not include the per diem. He explained decisions were made by management after his recommendations are submitted and reviewed before it is presented by the city manager. • D. Rise inquired about the Master Plan. T. Moultane stated it had been released by the City Commission for public review and comment for 63 days, with the survey open until April 29th. He encouraged the board members to read the proposed Master Plan. • J. Rise announced the transfer station would be open on Earth Day, April 27th, and Bay Light and Power would be taking certain appliances and giving rebates. • T. Moultane noted two Zoning Board of Appeals members attended Michigan Association of Planning workshops during the month of March. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise. Meeting ended at 8:07 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 5