Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance to allow dark window film at Biofuse Wellness, urges administrative alternatives
Summary
The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request that would have allowed darker window film at Biofuse Wellness (465 Fuller Ave NE), finding the need for the film was self-created; the board encouraged the applicant to pursue administrative departures with city staff.
The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals on a vote denied a request to allow existing low-visible-light-transmission (VLT) window film to remain on the storefront at Biofuse Wellness, 465 Fuller Avenue Northeast.
Planning staff told the board the zoning ordinance requires storefront glazing to let at least 70% of visible light pass through, and that the blue/orange perforated film currently on the tenant’s windows was not shown on permit plans and therefore is out of compliance. The applicant, Justin Bing, told the board the film provides patient privacy and prevents sunlight from degrading IV ingredients used in the business’s prep room.
The board’s denial centered on the variance standards. Board member Ms. Shafer said the applicant signed the lease knowing the adjacent drive‑through and building layout and that the difficulty cited was therefore self‑created: "He signed the lease with Starbucks there and knew what type of services he provided," she said. That, she argued, undercuts the finding needed to grant a variance.
Justin Bing offered operational and aesthetic reasons for a uniform film across windows and said he would accept a 50% VLT or an administrative option if required: "If we cannot keep what we have, then taking the offered 50% and being able to uniformly apply it to all windows would be our preferred outcome," he said.
Planning staff told the board the alternatives discussed after the case was tabled — a 70% film that meets VLT (staff said no product is available), a 50% uniform film, or limiting the current 30% film to selected windows — could qualify for administrative departures handled by the planning department. The board denied the variance but directed the applicant to work with staff to pursue those administrative options.
The decision means the applicant may seek an administrative departure or revise the scope of window coverage with planning staff rather than obtaining the variance the board rejected. Staff noted that variances and appeals can run with the land, and recommended that administrative departures may be a more appropriate route for business‑specific operational needs.
The Board moved on to its next case after the vote; staff encouraged the applicant to consult with the planning office about workable, conditioned solutions.
