Commission recommends denial of conditional rezoning for West Michigan Brick & Stone at 610 360th Street

The planning commission voted May 9 to recommend denial of a conditional rezoning request from West Michigan Brick & Stone for a parcel at 610 360th Street (case 25‑3883). The recommendation came after a public hearing, staff presentation, and applicant testimony.

Staff told the commission the parcel is split between Airport Commerce (AC) zoning and Agricultural/Conservation (ARC) zoning and is identified in the township’s master plan and utility‑service boundary in a way that creates expectations for limited gateway uses and future servicing. Staff raised several concerns: the preliminary plan did not demonstrate compliance with setback standards for outdoor material storage (staff referenced a 100‑foot setback standard used in a different special land‑use context), the site plan lacked sufficient grading/elevation information and visual buffering for a prominent gateway parcel, and the proposed use was not demonstrably consistent with the future land use designation.

Applicant attorney Patrick Sweeney and owner Tony Bonama argued the parcel is unusually constrained and underused, and that West Michigan Brick & Stone’s proposal—enclosed outdoor storage, a display garden, and limited office/wholesale operations—would create productive use where the land has sat vacant for decades. The applicant noted the western portion of the parcel was farmable while the eastern portion is topographically uneven, and said the plan would use fencing, landscaped buffers and a display garden to reduce visual impacts. The applicant also said the business expects modest traffic—roughly a dozen trucks on a typical busy day—and that site servicing could use a well and septic system if needed.

Commission discussion emphasized precedent and master‑plan consistency. Several commissioners said allowing an industrial‑type outdoor storage yard in the airport overlay would undercut the township’s recently adopted master plan and the utility boundary map; others expressed concern about setting a broad precedent that could invite similar requests for marginal, visible parcels. Staff reminded members that conditional rezonings are driven by the applicant’s offered conditions and that the township cannot impose conditions beyond the applicant’s proposals for a rezoning vote.

Following deliberation, a motion to recommend denial—citing inconsistency with master‑plan goals and future land use, failure to meet performance and location standards, and an incomplete demonstration of compliance with special‑use regulations—passed on a voice vote. The planning commission’s recommendation will go to the township board for consideration; staff discussed a likely schedule that would introduce a zoning‑map ordinance at the township board and, if advanced, consider adoption at a later meeting. The commission also set a public hearing date for airport overlay amendments for June 16, 2025.

Next steps: the township board will consider the planning commission’s recommendation; if the applicant wishes to pursue the use again, the applicant would need to revise the proposal to demonstrate compliance with zoning performance standards and provide the detailed engineering and grading information staff said were missing.