Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves setback variances for 905 South Henry Street parking plan
Summary
The Bay City Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved dimensional variances allowing reduced setbacks for a proposed parking area at 905 South Henry Street, including a 5‑foot setback along John F. Kennedy Drive and zero‑foot setbacks on two property sides; site‑plan review remains required.
The Bay City Zoning Board of Appeals approved a set of dimensional variances for a redevelopment plan at 905 South Henry Street, granting the appellant relief from standard yard setbacks so the property owner can construct a parking area tied to an adjacent clinic.
Appellant James Compo told the board the proposed layout routes vehicles into the site from John F. Kennedy Drive and out to Henry Street, and that an existing neighbor fence will remain. He said the submitted site plan shows a five‑foot green belt along the parking perimeter.
Staff member Mr. Malta read a fencing requirement in the site‑plan notes and told the board that “upon demolition of the existing building, install new 8 foot high privacy fencing to bridge the remaining gap along the property line. New fence shall be chain link with privacy slats or solid panel to match the material style and height of the existing adjacent neighbor fence.” The requirement was discussed as part of conditioning the project.
Commission discussion focused on how the ordinance treats access aisles and whether the access drive could be treated as exempt from certain setback measurements. After staff and commissioners concluded the access drive exempts portions of the lot from some yard requirements, Commissioner Larry Elliot moved to approve the non‑use variances in case Z2602. The board approved the motion in a roll‑call vote, 4–0.
The motion as stated in the record reduces the John F. Kennedy Drive frontage setback to a 5‑foot requirement (the ordinance requires 25 feet at that frontage) and records zero‑foot setbacks on the south side adjacent to the neighboring property and on the east side next to the railroad tracks as described in the approved motion.
Staff noted that the site still requires planning‑commission site‑plan review, which is scheduled for June 17. The board’s approval addresses only the variances discussed in the hearing; site plan and any final building or fence permits remain subject to review and inspection.
Outcome: Motion approved, roll call 4–0 (names recorded in roll call: Mr. Rise; Mr. Kleinu; Larry Elliot; Jan Rise).
