The City of Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve a dimensional variance for a recovery housing development at 1900 Belford Street, allowing the project's proposed exterior materials to fall well short of the zoning code's 50% natural-materials requirement.

The variance was granted Sept. 11, 2025, after the board adopted a finding of fact and then voted 6-0 to approve the request for the three-building project proposed by Edison Community Partners. The project is planned as long-term permanent supportive housing for people in recovery from substance use disorders and is supported by state housing funds and local subsidies.

The variance matters because the applicant said meeting the 50% natural-materials standard would raise construction and soft costs and reduce money available for supportive services. Matt Hollander, senior partner and the project's representative, told the board the developer faces high remediation and construction costs and has a narrow funding window for state funds. Hollander said the project currently counts on $26 million in State funding and other local sources and that meeting the 50% masonry requirement would add roughly $200,000 to project costs and about $140,000 in hard facade-material costs, with additional soft-cost impacts.

Hollander described the proposal as a permanent supportive housing development modeled on a Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) pilot called Andy's Place in Jackson. He said Building A would contain 36 mostly one-bedroom units with elevator service; Buildings B and C would be two-story walk-ups with family-sized two- and three-bedroom units. Hollander said the buildings are designed to transition to the adjacent single-family neighborhood, and that supportive-service partners include Integrated Services of Kalamazoo and local drug treatment courts.

Pete (planning staff) told the board that staff is generally supportive of the variance. In the staff presentation he noted inconsistent application of the 50% natural-materials standard across project types (it applies to multifamily residential but not to many mixed-use projects) and said planning staff is working to amend the ordinance language. He also confirmed the site plan will meet other site requirements, including stormwater, landscaping and bike parking.

Board members who spoke cited the site's contamination cleanup costs and the complexity of financing permanent supportive housing as factors weighing in favor of the variance. One board member said remediation and other special circumstances made the variance appropriate; another called the project "an excellent project" and urged that the savings be used for supportive services.

The board recorded the finding of fact that 87 notices of public hearing were mailed and that the city received one written response of support. No members of the public spoke in person or by call-in on the variance request; the board noted one email in support from a nearby property owner. The board adopted the finding of fact and then approved the variance request by roll-call vote: Sylvester, Wark, Hohler, Harrington, Hahn and Urban all voted yes.

Next steps: the applicant will proceed to site-plan review and continued funding and permitting work. The board's action approves only the dimensional variance from the listed facade material standard; it does not change the property's zoning classification or guarantee any particular funding outcome.