Consultant outlines zoning rewrite; commissioners flag nonconformities, site-plan thresholds and procedural edits

Giffels Webster consultant Joe Tangary presented the first round of proposed amendments to Bay City’s zoning ordinance on Sept. 24, outlining changes to the ordinance’s purpose and interpretation, procedures for nonconforming uses and structures, zoning‑board‑of‑appeals duties, and site‑plan and development procedures.

The planning‑commission discussion focused on several policy choices in the draft: how and when projects are grandfathered under a savings clause, proposed changes that would let the planning commission approve limited expansions of nonconforming uses, a raised administrative site‑plan threshold in industrial districts and clearer rules on when staff must refer a “minor” site plan to the commission.

Tangary said the draft includes new or clarified sections that municipal planners commonly use: a short title and statutory authorization referencing the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, an expanded severability/savings clause, and clearer rules for interpretation when different sections conflict. "We found that there were kind of a couple things that we see commonly in other ordinances that we weren't seeing here," Tangary told commissioners.

On nonconformities, the draft allows limited expansions of nonconforming uses under criteria and permits rebuilding if a structure is destroyed, language staff said is intended to ease practical problems with older buildings. Tangary said the draft also clarifies that conforming additions to a nonconforming structure are allowed so long as the addition itself meets current setbacks.

Commissioners debated site‑plan thresholds. The draft raises the square‑footage threshold for administrative (staff) review in industrial districts so that some larger industrial projects could be handled without full commission review; staff had suggested thresholds to reduce repetitive hearings for substantially similar buildings. Commissioners asked for alternatives to a pure square‑footage trigger — for example, language that would let staff review duplicative or phased additions without shifting full discretion away from the commission — and recommended retaining an explicit referral requirement when a waiver or other discretionary approval is necessary. Several commissioners asked that the word "may" (regarding referrals to the commission) be changed to "shall" to remove discretionary ambiguities.

Commissioners also probed the proposed pre‑application and preliminary‑site‑plan process and asked staff to ensure mandatory checklist items are clear to applicants (utility permits from MDOT or state agencies, title/easement checks, and required engineering approvals). On landscaping, commissioners discussed whether to require landscape plans to be prepared and sealed by a landscape architect; consensus did not emerge, but staff noted the draft already disallows prohibited species and can require plant lists where landscaping is mandatory.

The commission raised a procedural question about special land uses and site plans: staff recommended concurrent review of special‑use applications and required site plans to avoid approvals that would later be inconsistent. Commissioners discussed tradeoffs between developer cost and administrative certainty; staff explained concurrency prevents issuing a special‑use approval that cannot be implemented because of an unapproved final site plan.

Tangary presented a tentative schedule: the next tranche will address site‑development standards (lighting, landscaping, parking) in November and definitions and specific land‑use standards in January. Tangary said the draft will be revised to reflect commissioner input and that staff would circulate missing memo pages and the administrative/enforcement memo for additional review.

Commissioners directed staff to make targeted edits — clarify savings‑clause scope (which project actions are "grandfathered"), standardize use of terms such as "structure" versus "building," tighten referral language to require referral when waivers are needed, and reconsider the square‑footage thresholds or add rule language that captures the intended categories of projects for administrative review. The commission will consider revised drafts at future meetings.