Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, October 8, 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, Charles Congdon, Doug Rise. Excused: Larry Elliott. Others: Staff Liaison Terry Moultane, Planning & Zoning Manager; Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES C. Greenleaf moved to approve the August 13, 2024, meeting minutes as presented, seconded by J. Rise. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Case Z 24-03 – 302 N. Tuscola – MI Short Stay Solutions, LLC The appellant is requesting a use variance from Section 122-102 Table of permitted uses and structures, that would, if granted, authorize the use of the property for a non-transient stay facility to traveling medical professionals within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. The proposed use will provide eighteen rooms, and the duration of the stay will be determined for each guest based on the length of their work contracts with the hospital system, which vary typically from 13 weeks to 6 months. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Representative(s): Alex Reuter, Myers & Meyers, PLLC; Bryan Lalone & Candy Newcomb, Applicants. Mr. Reuter directed the board members to the first page of the supplement document and explained the intent of MI Short Stay Solutions was to run a resort style living facility for the traveling medical professionals contracted with local hospitals. He noted there was no provision for it in the current zoning ordinance and they are requesting a variance because there is no permitted use that specifically encompasses it. Mr. Reuter addressed the four use-variance standards and explained how each applied: 1. It has a unique nature and falls outside of the scope of permitted uses for what the definitions currently provide for. 2. It is uniquely designed specifically for semi temporary and multiple individuals with communal bathrooms and kitchen. It is not designed for commercial, industrial, or single-family use. 3. It would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood area. There would be 18 residential units on a non-transient basis for medical professionals contracted from 13 weeks to six months. There would be no retail or office space. The building has stood vacant for quite some time. The neighbors would benefit from the building being occupied. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting 4. The situation was not self-created. The applicant has no control over the fact that there are no zoning districts anywhere within the city where their intended use is permitted. In response to W. Darbee’s inquiries regarding renovations and the number of bathrooms and showers, Mr. Reuter responded no further renovations or construction would be needed. There were several bathrooms including one full bath, two half-baths and a fully handicapped accessible bathroom on the first level, with two communal bathrooms on the second level each having three stalls and showers, for a total of eight showers. W. Darbee invited public comment. Public Comment: 1. Gerald Manning – 308 N. Trumbull Street/ In favor of request. Stated he had lived there for 50 years. There were many problems involving police activity that went on for a long time when the building was used as an adolescent facility. It has been vacant for a long time; he would like to have quiet neighbors and to also put it on the tax roll. 2. Angela Shelby – registered nurse and Bay City resident / In favor of request. Thought it was a great idea. 3. Krystal Sanders – Bay City resident / In favor of request. Works with/for the applicants. She thought it was a great idea, at a great location. Everything has been taken into account for safety. There will be pass codes to enter the building and individual rooms. 4. Brenda Stone – mother of applicant / In favor of request. Thought it was a great idea. 5. Sylvia Shelby – Bay City resident and high school student / In favor of request. Thought it would be a good thing to have around. Communication received by phone, letter, or email read to the board members by staff: 1. Renate Haroldson – 311 Hill Street (Phone Call) / In favor of request. 2. Susan Merrow – 1879th Street (Phone Call) / In favor of request. Thought it was a fantastic use as long as it did not become, or was used as, a homeless shelter. 3. James Bellon – 412 N. Trumbull Street (Letter) / In favor of request. They were thankful the property was being put to use in a way that is to support the community. 4. Kathy Brewer – 400 Hill Street (Letter) / In favor of request. Had concerns prior to the issuance of a variance regarding specifying the definition of a traveling medical professional, providing a list of occupations that would qualify as a traveling medical professional, defining the proposed use type in the current zoning, documenting which city building and rental codes apply prior to, and during occupancy, and determining the authority of the city and how it will be applied. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting 5. Bradley & Jane Lodewyk – (email) / In favor of request. They were pleased to see about it but ask that there be no access to the property from Hill Street. J. Rise moved to close public comment and open discussion, seconded by C. Greenleaf. Motion carried unanimously. In response to T. Moultane’s inquiry if the appellant would be able to address any of the public comments, W. Darbee stated he would rather start discussion first since he believed they would be referring back to the appellant anyway. DISCUSSION and FINDING OF FACT: C. Greenleaf felt it would be a great asset. The building was designed and built for multiple residents with past history showing how it was occupied. Changing it to a single-family home is not feasible because of the way it’s designed on the large lot. J. Rise inquired if there was a city requirement for the building to be periodically inspected. T. Moultane answered zoning under Chapter 122 applies to any property, along with property maintenance in the building chapter under Chapter 26, Article VII, but it didn’t fit under short- or long-term rental inspection programs. There may be some additional state requirements, but otherwise only property maintenance and the zoning ordinance would apply under city code. Discussion took place between J. Rise and T. Moultane regarding if a condition could be made to require inspections. T. Moultane stated it would be a question of who has the authority to do inspections. Act 188 of 1913 is specific to an act relating to conducting inspections in hotels and in public lodging houses and if it applies, would be under a state agency. Under the previous use as the Lutheran Home, state inspections or fire related issues were performed at the state level. W. Darbee commented he would be hesitant to allow something like this if it weren’t inspected and subject to fire or safety control. He was concerned about the use potentially changing 10 or 20 years down the road. He was also concerned about the possibility of 18 or more cars with headlights intruding on neighboring properties during the night, and thought there should be a site plan with potential restrictions. T. Moultane explained there would still be inspections performed for permits pulled for renovations or construction. In regard to existing site conditions, there is an existing parking lot and blue trash bins would be used. He explained a condition could be made not to allow access from Hill Street, but felt site plan conditions could be met by city staff review to ensure all zoning regulations were met, and did not feel that an additional site plan review process would be necessary. Mr. Reuter interjected that there would be 25 parking spaces and there would be no physical changes or expansion made to the parking capabilities. It would also be subject to the city’s enforcement regulations. He addressed W. Darbee’s concern with the future use of the property, stating the variance request was specific to the approved use and could be revoked for a non-compliant use. Mr. Reuter confirmed that they would be subject to state inspections such as annual boiler and fire inspections. T. Moultane added the meeting would be public record with meeting minutes establishing the record that could be used for enforcement further down the road. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting D. Rise wondered how enforcement would be carried out pertaining to a condition allowing medical professionals only. T. Moultane said it would be through a complaint basis. D. Rise stated he agreed with W. Darbee’s concern regarding inspections for public safety and health welfare etc. Mr. Reuter reiterated the property would still be subject to the Zone Enabling Act for inspections and to address residents’ concerns, they would be willing to agree to a condition disallowing the use of Hill Road as an entrance. D. Rise asked if there would be opportunity to provide a mechanism for a condition subject to future action by the Planning Commission for establishment of regulations that would be applicable to this type of a property. T. Moultane answered it was beyond the current scope of the Table of Permitted Uses and didn’t think it would be added as a permitted or special use, as the property will always be designated as residential. There is the option of an evaluation of a substitution, however there wasn’t anything in the list of uses that would apply. W. Darbee was still concerned about parking and the potential for intrusive lights. He felt a site plan should be submitted for future purposes. He stated he was all for the intended use, but wanted to make sure everything was addressed. T. Moultane felt all factors should be considered concerning the site itself, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals should have the ability to set conditions and have it followed as a condition of the approval, and monitored over time for zoning violations or any misuses. J. Rise stated she would like to see two conditions included with the approval. Vacating the Hill Street entrance/exit and the inclusion of green space that would allow for a buffer between the parking lot and neighbors that would be reviewed by staff. Mr. Reuter believed they were already in compliance with the green space regulation required by the zoning ordinance. Ms. Newcomb referred to photos of the property. She explained that the residential house shown on the side close to the side parking area, was Mr. Manning’s, and he had spoken in support of them. The zoning map with the property outline was displayed on the overhead. Ms. Newcomb indicated the side parking area off the main driveway would not be used for residential parking. Residents and guests would park in back of the building by Hill Street. She thought it reasonable that vehicles would enter and exit from Trumbull Street. Mr. Reuter added there was considerable space between the parking area and any of the surrounding residences. Brief conversation ensued concerning the use of the Hill Street entrance. W. Darbee thought that entrance would be safer to use. He would not want to disallow using it with the only other entrance being on Trumbull Street. W. Darbee allowed comment from Kathy Brewer, a late arrival. T. Moultane stated he had read her letter during public comment. Ms. Brewer said she was happy with the improvements. She reiterated her comments that had been read by staff, and expressed her concerns for making sure the residents would be safe, that property maintenance would be addressed and that something be in place for any changes, Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting such as for a different use, number of units, and if they stopped having traveling medical professionals. She would also like to see a list of allowed changes specified that would address the future. In response, Mr. Reuter stated most of her concerns had already been addressed. Putting limitations on what medical professionals would be allowed was disconcerting to him. He stated they all would have contracts with local hospitals. Discussion ensued. D. Rise wondered if a condition could be made to have the contracts provided as evidence. Mr. Reuter replied the contract would be between employer and employee, not between MI Short Stay and the hospital. However, he reminded the board members that the request is specifically to allow medical professionals and could not be deviated from in any way if approved. The ZBA discussed each standard as follows: 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. C. Greenleaf felt it was a great asset and agreed the property could not be used for any other uses permitted in the zoning district. The building was designed for multiple people. According to its history it was intended for multiple people since it was built, right down to children at one point in time through the Michigan Lutheran Service. The appellant is trying to continue that use to provide care for the residents of the city. 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. J. Rise felt the requirement was met. The uniqueness of the property is the size of the building and makes it difficult to qualify for anything allowed in an R-1 zoning. 3. Whether granting a use variance will alter the character of the surrounding area. C. Greenleaf stated the building had been there for years and that the demographic of it was not being changed. The building is going to stay within the same blueprint of the current one which has been established there for many years. 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. C. Greenleaf thought not granting the variance will create a hardship for the area. The building has been sitting vacant and this will improve the area and will help the appellant. D. Rise felt the situation was self-created because the applicant had gone ahead with a grand opening and had not asked for any review. W. Darbee disagreed with D. Rise. The building wasn't built by them. The lot wasn't constructed by them. The procedure has not been to their liking, but it is not the fault of the appellant that Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 5  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting the building is on such a large property and is a one-design building so to speak that's not useful for very much. It was done years ago, and it has been laying vacant for a number of years. C. Greenleaf moved to close discussion, seconded by D. Rise. Motion carried unanimously. Motion for use variance request: Motion made by C. Greenleaf: “I make the motion to approve the application for Case# Z 24-03, 302 N. Tuscola Road, based on our discussion tonight. C. Congdon seconded. W. Darbee asked for the consideration of an amendment to require some sort of site plan to be on record for the property itself for future use, for any type of requested change than what is on the application for the variance that might need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. C. Greenleaf replied T. Moultane had already agreed that the site plan was not necessary from the city’s point of view. It had already been discussed that changes for any other type of use other than what is on the application, would have to automatically come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked T. Moultane if that was true. T. Moultane replied an amendment to the use variance granted would be required for anything outside of the parameters of what was approved, in order to be brought back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. W. Darbee asked for clarification of what was being approved with the motion. C. Greenleaf answered the approval was for the application for the intended purposes for short-stay people within the medical field to reside as they provide care to the area. D. Rise inquired if any conditions would be entered with the motion regarding the Hill Street entrance or the issue regarding possible improvements to the parking lot. C. Greenleaf answered a condition could be made for the closure of the Hill Street entrance, however, there had been concerns brought forward regarding safety on Trumbull and Tuscola and Hill Street could be a safe avenue for the people in the community. He did not feel one was needed for the parking lot as it had been established that it was compliant with the city’s zoning ordinance regarding the size and location of the property. In addition, the adjacent neighbor had no issues with the parking lot in its current state, and there was overwhelming support of the community in attendance wanting to see the improvement done for the community. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is in favor of the motion to approve the variance. D. Rise: No; C. Greenleaf: Yes; W. Darbee: Yes; J. Rise: Yes; C. Congdon: Yes. 4 Yes; 1 No. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 6  Tuesday, October 8, 2024 – Regular Meeting OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn by C. Greenleaf, seconded by W. Darbee. Meeting ended at 8:45 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 7