[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6552155,"mediaKeyId","5131625-edf25c56d5cac3c592039b356b683f16","parentId",5131625,"title","Petoskey ZBA discusses tightening variance expiration and permit rules; staff to draft ordinance language","audioSeconds",1867,"startMs",4221000,"endMs",6088000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5131625-edf25c56d5cac3c592039b356b683f16&start=4221&end=6088","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5131625-edf25c56d5cac3c592039b356b683f16/thumbnail_4221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6552155/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Petoskey-ZBA-discusses-tightening-variance-expiration-and-permit-rules-staff-to-draft-ordinance-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552155-1abb279c34cca35b1d75686539bb39e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725977&Signature=ceB6TOljzIR62MR06HaG9CwxCyyW5rntx3avRMt9Iiw5eIfJ0zN95AhmQgn1L1RnstAq49RSKsmRVn9iDcAXTv4SlPWlgCxIKiuJ0cArCBmyLLCL~xvpsNL~6yN8JAU405VPmdesDYEwV-DP6zSiJNweew9GayJBqjCO2zUMZbZdFTBodYe6-eL1mFEVETdHmEMTqHBdkTk166ZYUG4RYR0tktb5mLKCw-7z94S8GoDlaud0DaCdwouIts9LKlIHrDqupumYWNFzRC0sGX8lEYEsBiDjEZ~ZwcarVYZDMLDJ6ekmxUVPM~bKUp18sKillJrE-HwH20nDqZnwjr4C-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-02T11:56:14Z","article","At its July 1 meeting, the Petoskey City Zoning Board of Appeals discussed proposed changes to Appendix A (Article 20) aimed at clarifying how long variances and zoning permits remain valid and how the zoning permit and county building permit timelines should interact.

Staff presented two options: (1) require that, within one year of a variance approval, an applicant must obtain a zoning permit, obtain any required building permits and commence erection or alteration of the building that is progressing toward completion, with failure to do so causing the permit to expire and require a new variance; or (2) allow applicants to return to the ZBA to request an extension of an approved variance without reapplying for a full new variance.

Board members and staff focused on practical implementation questions: how the zoning administrator would verify that a building permit had been issued by the county, how the permit form and ordinance language must align to be enforceable, and whether the ordinance or the permit application must explicitly tie variance validity to the date the variance is granted (the board favored specifying a \"drop-dead\" expiration date tied to the date of variance approval). Laura, a city staff member, said the application currently states zoning permits are valid for 12 months from issuance but that the form alone is not enforceable; any change that municipalities seek to enforce must appear in the ordinance.

Board members agreed the language should be simplified and clarified (several members suggested breaking the paragraph into numbered conditions rather than one long sentence). They instructed staff to draft redrafted ordinance language using clearer items/numbering and to bring the proposed amendments to the planning commission for consideration. The board scheduled an August meeting to review the draft amendments.

No formal vote was taken; the board reached consensus to have staff prepare revised text and to return the item for formal consideration at a future open meeting.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Appeals 07.01.25","oneSentenceSummary","The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed two options for amending Appendix A (Article 20) to clarify when a variance and associated zoning permit expire and directed staff to draft clearer language to present to the planning commission and to review again in August.","taxTitle","Petoskey City, Emmet County, Michigan","taxId",53868,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6552160,"Petoskey ZBA upholds denial of first-floor short-term rental at 215 W. Mitchell",1140,2588000,3728000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5131625-edf25c56d5cac3c592039b356b683f16&start=2588&end=3728","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5131625-edf25c56d5cac3c592039b356b683f16/thumbnail_2588000.jpg","/articles/6552160/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Petoskey-ZBA-upholds-denial-of-first-floor-short-term-rental-at-215-W-Mitchell","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552160-081480f563ed233aa24b5f5647b2fd69/orig.mp4?Expires=1775725977&Signature=lHosSdxsNItUANSWjrvXutbohpljBnhmjV-~OCpTyeZQX2ymFiiUwyGDsq4wkABInXTo~RGpHpUnYoAqxOCoSlr1wg7Ba-CceOt~M-7quR7T3bDewOUNhb7gB8clvGJ943bTtv-jgXgyzIaSFO8i8bWDEmYASqGyBPzJ~VppQqGhnDUlYWdjpp7xOiZL~ixbBXqZENYMt-AcJ2DMlYkDc4Pgm4F7LYLqVT3deUki7DWyUdYEWRljsAr5LPJmjsB2VEMaFzXknoUb4emAutYhE5~D3M4NZpNHaLMZKTzxC6ld716tIJXm3RCe1g8eHTrEw2VW4sHcWBFgnRXvzUuKhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Petoskey City Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, July 1, approved a resolution affirming the zoning administrator''s Jan. 31, 2024, denial of a short-term rental license for the first floor of 215 West Mitchell Street.

The board''s motion, adopted after a public hearing and supplemental filings, said the Powells'' renovations were substantial but unlawful because they were performed without required building permits and therefore could not establish the lawful prior use necessary for a vested right.

The action came after the 57th Circuit Court for Emmet County remanded the case to the ZBA on April 7, 2025, directing the board to determine whether John and Mallory Powell (and the related business) had established a vested right to operate a first-floor short-term rental before the city''s December 2023 ordinance change (Ordinance No. 794). The Powells submitted photographs, expense records, floor plans and a timeline to the ZBA; the board reviewed those materials and the prior record.

Laura, a city staff member who read the resolution into the record, summarized the board''s factual findings, including that the Powells'' renovations involved demolition, reframing and installation of four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a kitchenette at an asserted total cost of $46,925, with about 90% of that cost allocated to the first floor. She read: \"the ZBA hereby affirms the zoning administrator's decision\" as part of the formal resolution.

Board members debated two legal standards that the circuit court''s remand required them to apply: (1) whether the applicants had performed work of a \"substantial character\" that materially and objectively changed the interior, and (2) whether the applicants had obtained a permit (or the legal equivalent) before the ordinance change. Several members said substantial physical work had occurred and cost money, but the board concluded the absence of required building permits was dispositive under the cited case law.

In its written reasoning, the ZBA referenced governing authority cited in the packet and read into the record, including the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and case law the board considered relevant (as listed in the resolution). The resolution notes prior proceedings: the ZBA''s June 4, 2024 hearing that affirmed the earlier administrative denial; the Powells'' appeal to circuit court on July 12, 2024; and the court''s April 7, 2025 remand narrowing the issue to whether a vested right existed before the ordinance change.

The resolution states that, although the renovations were substantial, they were performed without required building permits; under the cases cited in the record, work performed without permits cannot establish the lawful prior use needed to create a vested right. The resolution also finds that reliance on the contractor's assurances did not excuse the applicants' failure to secure permits and that no permit applications were submitted that would have allowed the city to determine whether permits would have been granted.

The board voted to adopt the resolution affirming the zoning administrator's determination; the board recorded affirmative votes in favor when the roll call was taken and the resolution was entered into the minutes.

The written resolution (entered into the record at the meeting) directs that any conflicting resolutions be appealed to the extent necessary to give this resolution full force and effect.

The ZBA noted that the court remand limited its review to the narrow legal question of vested rights as of the date the ordinance changed and that the board was bound to apply the controlling case law and evidence in the record rather than broader equitable considerations.

The board did not decide any appeals or permit applications beyond the remand question; the administrative denial remains affirmed, and the Powells may pursue any appellate options indicated by the circuit court record.

","The Petoskey City Zoning Board of Appeals on July 1 affirmed the zoning administrator''s denial of a short-term rental license for the first floor of 215 West Mitchell Street, finding work done without required building permits cannot establish a vested right.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Petoskey ZBA discusses tightening variance expiration and permit rules; staff to draft ordinance language

Petoskey ZBA upholds denial of first-floor short-term rental at 215 W. Mitchell