Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant recommends simplifying Cedar Springs zoning ordinance, tightening nonconforming rules
Summary
A planning consultant recommended streamlining the zoning ordinance—condensing site‑plan review standards, removing use variances, expanding nonconforming‑use guidance, fixing clerical errors and using tables/graphics—so the code is easier to administer and reduces contradictory wording.
A planning consultant presented a focused audit of Cedar Springs' zoning ordinance and identified several changes intended to improve clarity and administration while aligning the code with the master plan.
The consultant said the ordinance should add explicit standards that guide map and text amendments, noting that the current ordinance contains no such decision criteria. They recommended paring the site‑plan review considerations from 19 items down to roughly seven key standards to speed staff reports and streamline the review process.
On variances, the consultant recommended eliminating use variances, saying they are rarely granted and can be replaced by tools such as conditional rezonings. "A use variance is when the zoning board of appeals permits a use that is not otherwise permitted in that district through a variance process," the consultant explained; they advised retaining dimensional (non‑use) variances while prohibiting the use‑variance avenue.
The audit flagged the nonconforming‑use chapter as "pretty thin" and urged expansion so the city has clearer guidance—for example about rebuilding thresholds, temporary repairs and how to handle multifamily buildings in districts that otherwise allow only single‑family homes.
The consultant also pointed out clerical problems (mismatched footnote sequences in the dimensional table), suggested consolidating duplicated standards across district chapters, recommended more tables and graphics (for landscaping, parking and accessory buildings), and advised removing any provision that automatically reverts rezoning after a set time because that is typically not legally enforceable.
The consultant estimated that doing the full suite of changes could be handled as a single omnibus amendment or in smaller batches; staff and commissioners signaled support for prioritizing a short list of critical fixes (reversion language, nonconforming rules, and appeals of special uses) and addressing the rest over roughly a year.
Commissioners asked for an abbreviated list of the proposed site‑plan standards and for staff to provide prioritized, actionable amendments so the city can move forward in a staged fashion.
