Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nfp Guide Data Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews NFP guide draft and data on variances, seeks ordinance updates and resource list
Summary
Staff presented data on withdrawn applications and variance requests for NFP properties and circulated a draft NFP guide; the board discussed slope and woodland-related dimensional variances, cross-cutting regulatory conflicts, and possible resource lists or RFQ approaches to help applicants.
Staff member Nolan opened an unfinished-business work session Tuesday on data and the draft NFP guide, telling the board “this is probably gonna be unfinished business for a while this this year because we kicked it off at the January meeting.”
Nolan reviewed historical application outcomes and said withdrawals were relatively rare: one withdrawn application in 2020 (attributed to the COVID pandemic), two in 2021 (one because the project stopped moving forward and another because the applicant was not ready for site plan). He also gave the board a breakdown of variance involvement: about 39% of projects that came through site plan review included a dimensional variance and about 24% included a use variance.
Board members and staff discussed causes behind those variances. Nolan said many dimensional variance requests are likely tied to slopes and protected slope standards, and that some requests related to protected trees or restorative activities that may require temporary impacts. Directors raised examples where cross-cutting requirements — for example, state environmental permits, brownfield remediation, or minimum parking requirements driven by other funding or state rules — can force applicants to request variances or otherwise reconfigure plans.
The board discussed whether NFP ordinance language and guidance should be updated to clarify conflicts with external regulations. Nolan said the ordinance still references “MDEQ” in places and will be updated to call out the correct state agency (EGLE). He proposed further review of the ordinance definitions and possible clarifications for activities such as restorative wetland work that may temporarily impact features but serve a conservation purpose.
Discussion also focused on practical resources for applicants. Nolan described a draft guide intended to walk applicants through the NFP overlay standards, site-plan timing, and predevelopment steps; the draft includes a calendar and links to code sections. Board members suggested developing a resource list (for woodland delineation, wetland delineation, native-tree suppliers and nurseries, certified arborists) and discussed legal limits on compiling a recommended-provider list. Nolan said he would consult the city attorney about what form such a list could take and noted existing external lists (for example, EGLE’s permit resource lists) might be linked.
Board members noted that early predevelopment contact with staff and board members sometimes leads applicants to alter plans before a formal variance is filed; Nolan said that early engagement is part of the city’s predevelopment process and can reduce delays from sequential review by NFP and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Nolan also described noticing and scheduling constraints: NFP and ZBA each require mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet, which can add time when both reviews are required.
Nolan said the draft guide would be further revised and circulated; board members were invited to email comments. No formal vote was taken; the item remains unfinished business and staff will return with an updated guide and further ordinance review.
