Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, August 13, 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, Charles Congdon. Excused: Douglas Rise. Others: Staff Liaison Anthony Dier; Terry Moultane, Planning & Zoning Manager. APPROVAL OF MINUTES J. Rise moved to approve the April 9, 2024, meeting minutes as presented, seconded by C. Greenleaf. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Case Z 24-01 – 123 Woodside Ln. – Skyleigh Property Mgmt Service o/b Elevated 8 Michigan The appellant is requesting a use variance from Section 122-102 that would, if granted, authorize the establishment of a two-family dwelling within the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. Representative(s): Monique Gilbert, Skyleigh Property Mgmt Service Ms. Gilbert explained the property had been listed as a duplex in the multiple listing service and had tenants in it for well over a year when her clients acquired the property. It had gone through the appraisal service as a duplex and has been sold at least three times over the last several years as a duplex. It does have two driveways, one in the front and one in the back, and has separate entrances located on different sides of the building. Ms. Gilbert knows it has been rented as a duplex for three years and suspects it has been used as a duplex for 25 to 30 years. Because of the sales on the MLS and the recent sale in December of 2023, it is obvious it has been being used as duplex for a substantial amount of time and there would be no change for the neighborhood. However, there would be substantial financial burden for the owners who purchased it as a duplex. The cost to convert it back to a single-family home is approximated to be at least $25,000. Two tenants would be displaced, there would be lost income, and the value of the home would decrease. Ms. Gilbert stated the variance is being requested because of the previous amount of time it had already been used as a duplex; was appraised as and purchased with the intent of it being a duplex; and there would be financial burden placed on the owners and current tenants who have lease contracts until 2025. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, August 13, 2024 – Regular Meeting J. Rise asked if it was usual for a duplex to only have one gas, and one electric meter. Ms. Gilbert answered it is often the case, depending if the landlord wants to split the services. It is common to have shared utilities, but the owner’s intent is to split them at some point. In response to L. Elliott’s questions regarding enforcement from the City for unregistered rentals in 2021 and 2023, Ms. Gilbert explained she had filed the registration application when her property management company was hired and that was when they realized it was not zoned as a duplex. She could not speak to the responsibilities of realtors and how it was actually appraised as a duplex. She did know an appraisal had been conducted because the owners had financed the building. In response to C. Greenleaf, Ms. Gilbert confirmed the sale in 2021 had been a cash sale and an appraisal would not have been needed, but title work had been done and she was unsure why it didn’t come up. C. Greenleaf confirmed title work should have caught that. C. Congdon asked how long the building had been like that. Ms. Gilbert answered she could only see the last few sales that were published on the multiple listing service being a member of the Board of Realtors, however, by the age of the cabinets and the layout of the upstairs unit, she thought it could have been there 25 to 30 years. C. Congdon wondered why with so many people being involved with a sale of a property, realtors, assessors, rental registrations, etc., that zoning did not get checked out. Ms. Gilbert explained it would typically come up on an appraisal and would normally be caught prior to closing. She did not know how the property had been sold as a duplex going through the appraisal process and title work without it being caught – probably several times. However, she stressed that the use would be the same as it has been for several years, the owners are going to continue to improve the property, and there would be no change to the neighborhood. J. Rise wondered why the realtor wouldn’t have known since the City tried twice to get it registered as a rental, and the last time, it was sold instead. She felt it should have been part of a disclosure. Ms. Gilbert stated it would definitely be an issue if the realtor knew because it was posted into the MLS as being a duplex. The current owners purchased it because it was a duplex with existing tenants, and it would be a loss well over $50,000 for the owners if the variance isn’t granted. C. Greenleaf wondered if the owners had seen past tax bills because zoning designations are included on bills. Ms. Gilbert answered she did not think the owners had had copies of the tax bills to view prior to purchasing the building. W. Darbee invited public comment. Public Comment: 1. Barbara – 125 Woodside Ln. / Not opposed. They purchased their house in 1966. She stated the duplex had started out as a family home. The upstairs apartment was originally added for the owner’s aging sister. It has been rented out ever since then. She was concerned another dwelling unit was being built in the back of the property. She added one guy parks in the front and one guy parks in the back and just drives on the back lawn to get out by the back door. 2. Richard Smith – 125 Woodside Ln. / Not opposed. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, August 13, 2024 – Regular Meeting He had been concerned when they thought another building was going to be built, but he was not opposed to the variance. 3. Mary Dobert-Elder – 110 Woodside Ln. / Opposed. She was opposed because of the added traffic she felt it could produce in the back of their house. A. Dier clarified there was no proposal on the table to build another structure on the property. He explained the requested variance was only to allow the duplex to continue operating as a two-family dwelling when the zoning district only allows a single-family dwelling. In response to Mrs. Smith asking if permission would be needed in order to build a garage, W. Darbee answered they would need to get a building permit. J. Rise inquired If the owners were thinking of putting a “large-enough” space to park cars in the back. Ms. Gilbert answered only one car needed to park there. The approach from the road is designed as an entry point and the concrete pad is where the back person parks because their entrance is at the back of the house. She did not know if there used to be a garage. J. Rise asked if Ms. Gilbert had been involved in the last two sales of the house. Ms. Gilbert replied she was the buyer agent for the most previous sale in 2023. C. Greenleaf moved to close public comment and open discussion, seconded by L. Elliott. Roll Call Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION and FINDING OF FACT: W. Darbee inquired if information concerning tax billing or building permits was available. He thought it might help in determining how many years the dwelling was a duplex. A. Dier did not have building permitting information available at that time. He explained digital assessing records dated back to 1991 and showed that the previous property owners claimed the principal residence tax exemption (PRE) at 100% at some point in time, from the summer of 1999 until the winter of 2005. It was returned to 0% after 2005. He stated a 0% PRE implied that the owner had a primary residence elsewhere since they did not claim that location as their primary residence and that it usually indicated that property was a rental or investment property. Because of the tax records, J. Rise figured it had been a two-family dwelling for the last 19 years A. Dier stated the property had never been a registered rental with the City. He explained how occupation worked for legal two-unit status and what abandons the two-unit status. It was unknown whether the owner occupied one unit, and a family member occupied the other between 1999 and 2005; however, selling data and a gap from 2005 until now where nobody claimed homestead existed. Staff was not able to show where the property was legal non-conforming, thus the need for the variance. J. Rise thought there was a moratorium on conversions from one to multiple families. A. Dier explained the moratorium was for accessory apartments and explained the difference between a two-family dwelling and duplex versus an accessory apartment. He clarified there was no moratorium Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, August 13, 2024 – Regular Meeting on converting a structure from single to two-family with separate entrances, the moratorium is on “carving out” an accessory apartment within a home. W. Darbee announced a letter had been received from Craig P. McMorris, 1515 Ryan Street, in opposition to the variance along with a comment received by telephone from Scott Shafer, 120 Woodside Lane, who is also in opposition. W. Darbee was inclined to allow the variance because of the length of time it has been there, that there had hardly been any opposition or issues, from testimony received dating back 30 – 40 years, and that it had been sold and purchased under the guise of a two-family dwelling. L. Elliott agreed it would be nice to approve the variance because it had been a rental for so long, however, he was not sure what the physical circumstances unique to the property were to satisfy the second standard. He could make a reasonable argument regarding standards one and four, that the economic return of having to return this to single family presents a substantial hardship on the current owners. C. Greenleaf stated the zoning fell through by the mortgage company and agents involved, but it was represented and purchased in good faith as a two-family duplex home. It wasn’t purchased for the intent of a single-unit home. J. Rise did not feel it is qualified for the variance because of standard two. C. Greenleaf disagreed. He thought it was unique because of how it was represented by MLS, the appraisal for the property, and title work of the property as being a two-unit when it was purchased. W. Darbee noted the home looked like a single-family dwelling. A very unique situation from the standpoint of the physical building on the premises existed. To do anything else with the 50-ft wide property would take major changes to the interior which could cause it to be destroyed and demolished, leaving vacant property that would have to be built on, potentially looking substantially different from the current building. Motion for use variance request: Motion made by W. Darbee: “I’ll make the motion that from the standpoint of allowing the property continue as a two-family dwelling based on all of the comments that we’ve heard in the use variance standards, and subject to the owner making the necessary paperwork with the City to change the indications on any and all records that this is a two-family dwelling.” C. Greenleaf seconded. A. Dier did not think standards one and three had been formally addressed. L. Elliott thought standard one was addressed with the discussion regarding on substantial hardship based on the number of years. He addressed standard three. He said he didn’t think there would be any impact on the character of the surrounding area or traffic because there would be no change to how it has been used for the past 15 or 20 years. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is in favor of the motion to approve the variance. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, August 13, 2024 – Regular Meeting L. Elliott: Yes; C. Greenleaf: Yes; W. Darbee: Yes; J. Rise: No; C. Congdon: Yes. 4 Yes; 1 No. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS W. Darbee inquired on the status of per diem for the Zoning Board of Appeals. A. Dier explained the budget review process. He stated the request was put forth but had not been approved by the finance committee, and so was not included in the budget submitted to the City Commission. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn by C. Greenleaf, seconded by L. Elliot. 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