Zoning board postpones decision on lot-split, setback and lot-coverage variances for church property (Case Z2501)

Bay City Zoning Board of Appeals members on April 8 voted to postpone action on Case Z2501, a request to split a church property and grant multiple non-use variances, until the applicant submits updated drawings, a clearer site plan and supporting engineering documents.

The request from the appellant, identified in the meeting material as associated with Melvin Correa, asked for three variances: a reduction of a minimum side yard setback from 5 feet to about 2.3 feet for a proposed new lot line; an exemption from a code provision requiring institutional uses to keep a 10-foot setback from residential lots; and relief from a 35% maximum lot-coverage limit for the R-2 single- and two-family zoning district. The board delayed a decision to allow staff and the members to review corrected surveys and drawings showing the building footprint and the location of an existing egress stairway.

Board members and staff pressed the appellant for clearer plans and an engineer’s drawing that shows how a relocated stair egress would sit relative to the proposed new property line. A staff representative told the board the submitted drawings did not show the “proper footprint of the building itself, and nor does it show this encroachment that you’re talking about moving,” and recommended updated materials before a decision. The applicant replied he could supply the requested documents after returning to town.

Several technical questions framed the discussion: whether the proposed stair configuration would place steps within the 2.3-foot setback, how the steps presently exit the building (the applicant said the door faces south and steps currently descend toward the east), and whether turning the steps would create any future access issues if an adjacent parcel owner later erected a fence. Staff noted that nothing structural could be located within the 2.3-foot setback if the variance were granted, and that the ZBA could make updated drawings and an engineering plan a condition of approval.

Benjamin Champagne, who identified himself as an interested party and supporter of splitting the property, spoke during public comment in favor of the plan, saying the split would allow the house to be sold to a family and would leave the church and its parking intact for continued use. After public comment, Commissioner (motion maker not specified in the record) moved to postpone Case Z2501 to the board’s next meeting so the appellant could provide renderings and clearer written statements; the motion passed on a roll call, 5-0.

The board listed the documents it wants before reconsidering the matter: updated, legible survey drawings showing the building footprint; engineered drawings that clarify the stair/egress location relative to the proposed new property line; and language or documents addressing long-term access to the parking lot (for example, a recorded parking agreement or deed restriction tying parking to the church parcel).