Board denies Cherry Hill Market’s request to add package liquor sales near Cherry Park

The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny Cherry Hill Market’s request to expand its non‑conforming convenience‑store use to include package liquor sales at 721–723 Cherry Street Southeast.

Planning staff walked the board through a decades‑long variance history for the property, noting that the site was rezoned from commercial to residential in 1948 and that alcohol (beer and wine) sales trace to a 1986 change. The applicant requested local approval to sell package liquor under a state SDD license; staff said the Michigan Liquor Control Commission had already issued an SDD license but local zoning approval was still required to sell in the neighborhood.

Attorney Michael Brown and owner Shawn Chhabra said adding a modest, behind‑the‑counter package‑liquor selection would help the independent market survive and would not operate like a full liquor store: "This is simply adding one more convenience to the list of items offered by this store," Brown said. Chhabra said state notice led them to believe the transfer was complete but the city later informed them of zoning requirements and they stopped selling when notified.

Neighbors and East Hills Council of Neighbors Executive Director Jessica Young opposed the expansion, citing a short trial period of liquor sales that the neighborhood says increased litter at adjacent Cherry Park and changed park behavior. "We started receiving complaints that neighbors regularly found themselves picking up those little bottles just to keep the park clean," Young said.

Board members used the planning commission’s alcohol‑review standards as a guide and focused on whether the expansion would cause a substantial detrimental effect on adjacent uses. Several members noted that package liquor already exists nearby (citing other stores within walking distance), that a park sits immediately adjacent to the market, and that the market is surrounded by residential properties — factors that weighed against approving the enlargement of the non‑conforming use.

The board found the record supported a conclusion of likely substantial detriment and denied the expansion. Staff noted the code limits enlargement of non‑conforming areas to 25% and recommended that, if the board had reached a favorable finding, it could have tied the approval to a defined floor plan and conditions limiting package liquor to a small behind‑the‑counter area. The board instead denied the request but did not preclude the applicant from working with staff or pursuing other administrative or conditioned paths.

The denial carries with it the option for the applicant to consult with planning and legal staff about how to proceed, including possible revised applications or administrative departures that could be consistent with neighborhood standards.