Bay City planning commissioners review draft zoning ordinance updates, flag wording and process concerns

Bay City Planning Commission members spent much of their Sept. 24 meeting reviewing revisions to the city's draft zoning ordinance and asking staff for clarifications on wording and process rather than taking any final votes on the document.

The commission's review covered nonconformities, the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) authority, standards for dimensional and use variances, conditional rezonings, notice and timing rules, and performance guarantees for development. Terry Moltain of Bay City planning staff presented the materials and told commissioners he had not provided printed packets earlier because of office moves and staffing shortages. "I apologize. I didn't make copies," Moltain said, explaining he printed materials before the meeting resumed.

Why it matters: The rewrite is intended to consolidate and clarify long-standing provisions and to bring the city's ordinance into alignment with state law and current practice. Commissioners raised multiple drafting and policy questions that staff said they will return to the ordinance consultant for revision before the commission's next review in November.

Key changes and concerns

- Nonconformities and rebuilding standards: The draft moves some text to different sections (for example, references to nonconforming structures are reorganized around section 22.5 and 22.2). Commissioners noted the draft reduces some absolute prohibitions and gives the commission or ZBA clearer authority to consider expansions of nonconforming properties. A past case on Linn Street, in which the ZBA granted a variance related to a replacement cost exceeding 100% of fair market value, prompted discussion of how the new language would apply in similar cases.

- "Inception" and lawful use language: Commissioners asked staff to clarify language that says a use was "lawful at the time of inception," noting uncertainty whether "inception" refers to when the use began or to the date of the city's first zoning ordinance in the 1930s. Moltain said staff will propose wording to make the intended meaning explicit.

- Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) procedures and standards: The draft adds a more detailed provision on ZBA authority, administrative appeals and interpretation requests, and expands the criteria for dimensional variances beyond the single-sentence standard the commission had historically used. Staff said the added verbiage likely reflects recent case law and training guidance; commissioners asked the consultant ("Joe," who drafted the revisions) to explain the legal basis at the November meeting.

- Distinction between dimensional and use variances: Commissioners reviewed differences between practical-difficulty (dimensional) and unnecessary-hardship (use) standards. The draft reiterates that a use variance requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of the ZBA (so four votes on a five-member body), and commissioners discussed how "unique circumstances" and "general neighborhood conditions" should be worded and applied.

- Conditional rezoning: The draft includes new provisions allowing conditional rezonings, where an applicant may offer conditions and the city may approve a rezoning subject to those conditions. Commissioners raised multiple questions, including whether conditions would "run with the land," how long an approved conditional rezoning would remain if development had not "commenced," and what precisely constitutes commencement (building permit issuance, shovel in ground, contract executed). The draft contains a two-year reversion clause for conditional rezonings that do not commence; commissioners asked staff to clarify the benchmark for commencement.

- Performance guarantees and administration: The draft references performance guarantees (cash, performance or surety bond) and lists improvements for which guarantees may be required (roads, parking, lighting, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping). Commissioners pressed whether engineering or the planning department would determine and administer guarantees, whether the city has historically used these instruments, and the implications of retaining 10% of a guarantee for one year after landscaping for maintenance. Staff noted the municipal code and state statute authority but said they would confer with other departments on procedures and who determines amounts.

- Notice periods, fee schedule and commission terms: Commissioners noted an apparent omission or inconsistent placement of the 15-day public-notice requirement that the Michigan Planning Act requires for some hearings and asked staff to ensure the text reflects statutory notice deadlines. They also noted that the draft states planning commission terms in the city code as four or five years but the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act provides for three-year terms; staff said they will coordinate with the city manager's office. The draft gives the city manager authority to set a fee schedule; commissioners asked about the process for fee updates.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (Sept. 24, 2025, meeting): Motion to approve minutes as corrected (mover and seconder not specified in the record). Outcome: approved by voice vote. - Recess motions: The commission approved a five-minute recess earlier in the meeting and a separate 10-minute break later; both motions passed by voice vote (movers/seconders not specified). - Resumption of regular order and adjournment: Motions to resume the meeting and to adjourn were both approved by voice vote (movers/seconders not specified). No substantive ordinance provisions were adopted at this meeting.

What comes next

Staff said they will compile commissioners' comments and send them to the ordinance consultant, and the commission will take another detailed look at the administrative and enforcement sections (including ZBA and conditional-rezoning language) at its November meeting. Commissioners also asked staff to resolve phrasing issues, clarify which city department would administer performance guarantees, and confirm statutory notice and term requirements with the city manager and legal counsel.

Speakers quoted or described in this article are identified in the meeting record; the commission did not adopt final ordinance language at this session and requested further attorney/consultant guidance and drafting edits before a subsequent review.