Planning commission begins zoning ordinance rewrite review; debates nonconformities, administrative review thresholds and special‑use concurrency

Bay City planning commissioners spent the second half of their Sept. 24 meeting examining the first round of a proposed complete zoning ordinance rewrite, focusing on foundational text, administrative enforcement, nonconforming uses, site plan procedures and special land‑use rules.

Consultant Joe Tangary of Giffels Webster said the rewrite is being delivered in stages: Article 1 (short title, legal basis and purpose) and administration/enforcement content were on the Sept. 24 agenda; site development standards will be discussed in November and use definitions and specific land‑use standards in January.

Key policy changes Tangary described include updating statutory citations to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (Act 110 of 2006); adding clearer severability, repeal and savings‑clause language; and giving planning staff and the planning commission explicit tools for handling nonconforming structures. The draft would let the planning commission approve limited expansions of nonconforming structures under defined criteria, allow rebuilding of nonconforming houses destroyed beyond a certain threshold, and permit conforming additions to otherwise nonconforming buildings.

Commissioners probed several areas they said need clarification: the meaning of “diligent work” when preserving a project’s grandfathered status, consistent use of defined terms (for example, whether to use ‘structure’ or ‘building’ uniformly), and the point at which an in‑progress project is considered sufficiently advanced to be covered by a savings clause. One commissioner asked whether the savings clause should apply upon submission of an application rather than only upon formal approval; Tangary and staff said the intent is to narrow ambiguity, but that the city commission will set final policy.

Another focus was administrative site‑plan review thresholds. The current ordinance uses a 3,000 square‑foot threshold for planning commission review; the draft proposes raising the threshold (staff suggested 4,000 for general districts and a larger threshold for industrial districts) to allow staff to process smaller, non‑discretionary projects. Commissioners debated whether numeric thresholds are the right mechanism or whether language tied to project type (e.g., replication of an existing building) might better capture the policy intent. Several commissioners recommended changing discretionary referral language from “may” to “shall” when a waiver or discretionary approval is required, ensuring staff must send such matters to the commission.

On special land uses, Tangary said the draft clarifies when modified approvals must return to the commission and recommends concurrent review of special land use and site plan applications so the two processes do not produce conflicting outcomes. Commissioners weighed the tradeoffs: concurrency can protect neighbors and avoid appeals, but it also can increase cost and risk for applicants who need full plans before a commission vote.

Tangary and staff agreed to supply the missing memo referenced in the packet that was omitted from attendees’ printouts and to circulate the next memo in advance of the next meeting. Commissioners asked for clearer, less discretionary language in several places and more explicit direction on cross‑agency permitting (MDOT, EGLE) and information requirements for a pre‑application checklist.

Next steps: staff and the consultant will provide the missing memorandum and rework language where commissioners requested greater precision (definitions, application triggers for the savings clause, and referral rules). The commission expects to review site development standards in November and a subsequent round on definitions and specific land‑use standards in January.