[PAGE 1]
Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing
Tuesday, March 10, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Commission Chambers
301 Washington Avenue
PLEASE ENTER CITY HALL VIA SAGINAW STREET (REAR) ENTRANCE. DOOR WILL OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Introduction & Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 2025
4. Public Comment - Non-Agenda Items
5. New Business:
1. Case Z 26-01 – 501 Columbus Avenue – Bay City Housing Commission
The appellant is requesting a non-use variance from Section 122-383 of the Bay City Zoning Ordinance.
Section 122-383 establishes off-street parking requirements for residential use as follows:
o 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit
o 2 spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit
The variance request applies only to the portion of the development located in the O-1 zoning district,
which will contain 60 dwelling units. Based on the proposed unit mix (20 one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom,
and 15 three-bedroom units), the ordinance requires 110 parking spaces. The appellant is proposing 63
parking spaces on the O-1 Office parcel and is seeking relief from the minimum parking requirements for
that parcel.
6. Communications
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn
Planning & Zoning • Suite 211 • City Hall
301 Washington Avenue • Bay City, MI 48708

[PAGE 2]
Tuesday, December 18, 2025 – Regular Meeting
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
City Chambers, City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Jan Rise called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL
Present: Jan Rise, Douglas Rise, Larry Elliott, Paul Kleinau and Chris Greenleaf.
Absent: None.
Others: Adam Pruett, Community Development Planner and Sue Coggin, Code Enforcement
Coordinator.
PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes were reviewed by the ZBA members. L. Elliott stated that he would be abstaining from voting
on the minutes as he was absent from this meeting. Motion by C. Greenleaf, supported by D. Rise, to
approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 4 Yeas, 0 Nays, 1 Abstain.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case Z 25-08 – 900 6th Street, Zeke Carlyon
The appellant is requesting a use variance from Section 122-102 that would, if granted, authorize
the establishment of a microbrewery and restaurant within an existing church building. Seating
capacity is anticipated to be 125 people. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family
Residential as most church uses are in Bay City. A microbrewery and restaurant are not permitted
uses in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential zoning districts. The appellant must obtain a
use variance from R-2, Single and Two-Family zoning district regulations to establish a
microbrewery and restaurant.
Representative(s) Present: Zeke Carlyon and Stephanie Carlyon
Mr. Carlyon stated that they chose this location due to the residential nature, the available parking
and the idea of repurposing one the many existing churches located in Bay City. He further stated
that while the building can occupy 125 people, it is their belief that it would be a rare occasion
when he building will be at capacity.
J. Rise questioned whether entertainment would be a full-time option within this establishment.
Mr. Carlyon stated that they would like to have some music from time to time, but it is not the
primary use. Their goal is to have the restaurant/bar/microbrewery.
L. Elliott stated that the number of occupants appears to be in line with the previous use which
was a church. He also feels that the 9 p.m. closing time during the weekdays and the 10 p.m.
closing time on the weekends were compatible with the residential area.
P. Kleinau question if the City had a noise ordinance and if this would be an issue. S. Coggin stated
that there is a noise ordinance, however, with their anticipated closing times, she did not feel that
Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.gov 1

[PAGE 3]
Tuesday, December 18, 2025 – Regular Meeting
this would be an issue with the existing ordinance. If there was a problem, the Public Safety
Department could enforce this section of the ordinance.
J. Rise stated that she is still concerned with the parking for this establishment. She stated that
while there is on-street parking available in the area, they are all on one side of the street only
and this is already a congested area due to the multi-residential units in the vicinity. By her
calculation, she believes at least 50/60 spaces would be required.
P. Kleinau stated that he respectively disagrees with the 50/60 required spaces and by his
calculation, based on the staff report, would be approximately 30/31 spaces. He also believes
that due to the residential nature of the area, there would probably be a lot of foot traffic.
J. Rise invited public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
In-Person Comments:
1. Mr. Heaslip, 613 N. Van Buren Street
Mr. Heaslip stated that while he is in favor or repurposing the building, he is concerned
with the parking situation, truck deliveries and the safety for the children in the
neighborhood.
2. Ms. Laura Kubit, 906 N. Jackson Street
Ms. Kubit was present to speak in favor of this project. She stated that she is looking
forward to having such a walkable establishment in the neighborhood.
No other correspondence or telephone calls were received regarding this proposed variance
request.
Motion by C. Greenleaf and supported by Mr. L. Elliott to open the business portion of this
proposed variance request. 5 Yes, 0 Nays
DISCUSSION & FINDING OF FACT:
C. Greenleaf feels that this is a very valuable reuse of this former church. He also believes in the
popularity of microbreweries which will hopefully bring more out-of-town visitors to the Bay City
Area.
P. Kleinau stated that he is a proponent of mixed uses and feels this is a good use to fill this vacant
building. While he still has some concern for the truck traffic and parking, he is all for this project
moving forward.
J. Rise stated that she is still very concerned with the parking. If this variance is approved, she
would like to add a condition that would have the property owner seek out an agreement with a
neighboring property for overflow parking when they are busy. C. Greenleaf feels that this parking
situation is not unusual for the 1st ward district. He further stated that the chance of the
establishment being 100% occupied probably small, therefore, would not be a detriment to the
neighborhood.
A. Pruett discussed the definition of usable floor area based on the Zoning Ordinance to give the
members a more accurate look at the potential parking. L. Elliott stated that based on this
Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.gov 2

[PAGE 4]
Tuesday, December 18, 2025 – Regular Meeting
definition and calculated area, it appears 30 spaces would be required. He is concerned, however,
that neighboring property owners may also use this parking area.
J. Rise stated that she is also concerned about noise and would like another condition added if
approved, that the establishment must not operate past 11 p.m.
The ZBA discussed each standard as follows:
1. The property subject to the request cannot be used for any of the uses permitted in the
zoning district in which it is located.
D. Rise felt that this standard had been met as this property could not be used for the
zoned residential purpose.
2. The need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as its odd
shape, extreme narrowness, topography, and other physical features or constraints.
P. Kleinau stated yes, as church memberships are down and the building cannot be
fulfilled with its current institutional use.
3. Whether granting a use variance will alter the character of the surrounding area.
It was agreed that this use would not alter the character of the surrounding area as the
previous church attendance would be consistent with the proposed use.
4. Whether the unnecessary hardship asserted by the requesting party as justification for
granting a use variance is self-created by an action taken by the appellant or predecessor
in title.
J. Rise stated that it is not self-created.
DECISION:
Motion by D. Rise, supported by L. Elliott, to approve the proposed variance upon the following
conditions:
1. Submit a proposed parking agreement with a neighboring property owner in order to
accommodate overflow parking.
2. Property must not be open any later than 11 p.m.
3. Bicycle racks to be installed.
J. Rise called for a Roll Call vote: 5 Yeas, 0 Nays. Motion carried and variance was granted.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. J. Rise discussed the potential change in the staring time of the meetings. She stated that due to
the number of meetings staff must attend, the 7 p.m. start time is inconvenient. Motion by L.
Elliott, supported by D. Rise to change the meeting time to 6 p.m. effective January, 2026. 5 Yeas,
0 Nays. Motion carried.
Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.gov 3

[PAGE 5]
Tuesday, December 18, 2025 – Regular Meeting
2. J. Rise stated that due to the age of the current by-laws, she would like to look at establishing a
committee to review and potentially update them. J. Rise and L. Elliott volunteered for this review
and update.
3. A. Pruett stated that staff would like to make a change regarding members potentially being
absent. When a member of the ZBA feels that they will be absent for the next scheduled meeting,
staff would like that recorded on record. The ZBA members agreed to this change. L. Elliott stated
that if a meeting is held in January, 2026, he would be absent.
4. J. Rise mentioned educational opportunities coming up in the new year and have members reach
out to staff if they would like to attend.
ADJOURN
Motion by D. Rise, supported by L. Elliott, to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 p.m. 5 Yeas, 0 Nays Motion
carried.
Prepared by Sue Coggin, Code Enforcement Coordinator
Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.gov 4

[PAGE 6]
Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Report
Case Z 26-01
Public Hearing Date – Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Appellant: Bay City Housing Commission
Property Owner: (Same)
Property Address: 501 Columbus Avenue
Zoning District: O-1, Office
Description of Request
The appellant is requesting a non-use variance from Sec. 122-383 for the number of parking
spaces required for the Bay City Housing Commission’s residential project named Newmarket
Commons.
The public notice prepared for this case best summarizes the need for the variance.
1. The appellant is requesting a non-use variance from Section 122-383 of the Bay City Zoning
Ordinance.
Section 122-383 establishes off-street parking requirements for residential uses as follows:
o 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit
o 2 spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit
The variance request applies only to the portion of the development located in the O-1 zoning
district, which will contain 60 dwelling units. Based on the proposed unit mix (20 one-bedroom, 25
two-bedroom, and 15 three-bedroom units), the ordinance requires 110 parking spaces. The
appellant is proposing 63 parking spaces on the O-1 parcel and is seeking relief from the
minimum parking requirements for that parcel.

[PAGE 7]
Summary
The appellant is requesting a non-use variance related to the number of parking spaces required
based on the O-1, Office zoning district designation for half of the site. The development project
will be bounded by 11th Street on the north, Columbus Avenue on the south, Madison Avenue on
the east and Adams Street on the west. A right of way vacation for Jefferson Street between 11th
and Columbus is being processed and all other right of ways and easements have been removed
from the project site.
The zoning ordinance does not require off-street parking standards found in table 122-383 to be
met for C-2-A zoning district designation. Therefore, from Jefferson Street to Adams Street the
parking standards don’t apply. The property from Jefferson Street to Madison is an O-1, Office
zoning district and parking standards do apply. The variance request will focus on the O-1 Office
zoning district.
The appellant describes the request as reducing the overall parking ratio to 1.0 per unit. The
overall designed parking ratio is 1.08 per unit. Using a ratio is one way to describe the unit to
parking space calculation and the attached “parking calc’s” will be discussed at the meeting to
provide some explanation based on other sites owned and operated by the Bay City Housing
Commission. For the variance request an actual number of parking spaces is calculated based
on dwelling unit type and that will be used in the findings. The public notice provides the parking
space numbers needed and those proposed:
Based on the proposed unit mix (20 one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom, and 15 three-bedroom units), the
ordinance requires 110 parking spaces. The appellant is proposing 63 parking spaces
Appellants’ Evidence
The appellant has applied and statements (Narrative Description)
speaking to the City’s non-use variance standards listed at Section 122-544 of the City’s zoning
regulations. Information related to parking requirements was included in the site plans submitted
to the Planning Commission for the February 25th meeting and included in the report.
The ZBA must find the appellant’s evidence of need for the requested variance satisfies each of
the standards listed at Section 122-544(d)(1) of the City’s zoning regulations for the variance to
be granted.
Non-Use Variance Standards
A non-use variance is warranted when the physical characteristics and circumstances of
property render compliance with a zoning regulation impractical to the point of being
unreasonably burdensome for a property owner. The ZBA has discretionary authority to
determine whether those conditions and circumstances satisfy or fail to satisfy the decision-
making standards.
The characteristics and circumstances rendering compliance with a zoning regulation
unnecessarily burdensome must:
• Be unique to the property subject to a request for a variance.
• Make the property dissimilar to other properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

[PAGE 8]
• Unreasonably prevent a property owner from making a regulated improvement to their
property in compliance with the regulation from which the variance is sought.
The non-use variance standards are listed below. The findings must reflect the board’s
consideration of appellants’ need for the variance in the context of each of the standards. The
board must find that all the standards have been satisfied by an appellant’s evidence before a
variance can be granted.
a. Strict compliance with restrictions governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk,
density, or other nonuse matters will unreasonably prevent the owner from using property for a
permitted purpose or will render conformity with this chapter unnecessarily burdensome.
b. The variance(s) will do substantial justice to the applicant, as well as to other property
owners.
c. A lesser variance than that requested will not give substantial relief to the applicant.
d. The need for the variance is due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property (such
as odd shape, extreme narrowness, etc.) and not due to general neighborhood conditions
to other properties in the same zoning district.
e. The problem and resulting need for the variance has not been self-created.
Decision
The ZBA must:
1) grant the variance as requested;
2) grant the variance subject to conditions;
3) grant a lesser variance than requested;
4) deny the variance; or
5) postpone consideration of the request pending an appellant’s provision of additional
evidence deemed necessary to informed decision making.
Motion to grant variance:
A brief motion is required to grant the variance as requested based on the findings in the previous
section of this staff report.
• Based on the foregoing findings, I move that the ZBA grant variance requested by the
appellant.
Motion to deny variance:
A brief motion is required to deny the variance. The ZBA must make separate findings contrary
to those in the previous section of this staff report to document the basis and rational for denial.
• Based on the foregoing findings, I move that the ZBA deny the variance requested by the
appellant.

[PAGE 9]
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
Planning & Zoning Department
Bay City, Michigan
Project: 501 Columbus Avenue
Variance Requested: A variance for the O-1 Office District to reduce the overall parking
ratio to 1.0 per unit. The overall designed parking ratio is 1.08 per unit.
The property depicted in the attached Site Plan (C1-01) herein is to be developed as
Affordable Housing. There are two primary zoning districts that encompass the
consolidated parcels being developed.
A Special Use Permit was
requested of the Planning
and Zoning Board to allow for
multifamily residential
development in the C-2-A
and O-1 Office districts. The
C-2-A District has no
limitation or minimum on
parking ratios. However, the
O-1 Office District has a
minimum. The total
development plan includes
120 residential units with 130
parking spaces per residential unit.
The site is located within the federally designated Opportunity Zone and has one the
highest “walkability” scores in Bay City complimented by a vibrant public
transportation system at the doorstep to all units along N. Madison Avenue and Columbus
Avenue.
The development will be constructed in a single phase with all appropriate cross easement
agreements between buildings to enable cross-parking, ingress and egress as needed by
the tenants.

[PAGE 11]
11TH STREET
11TH STREET
14
13
25 E
U
12 N T
E E
E V
R A
7
T N
S O S S M I D
A A
D M A
8
13
8
5
8
PROJECT #
8
ISSUANCES
9
T
R REVISIONS
U
O
C
T
E
K
R
A
M
W
E
N
DRAWN BY KDO
SITE PLAN (THIS
COLUMBUS AVENUE IS NOT A
(80'-0") SURVEY)
C1.01
gwd.5TPECNOC\sgniwarD-3\noissimmoC
gnisuoH
ytiC
yaB
52-7751\stcejorP\:U
MP
24:3
6202/31/1
.CNI
,OIDUTS
NGISED
TPECNOC
805
ETIUS
,DAOR
SILLE
.E
008
14494
IM
,SEROHS
NOTRON
8384-997
)132(
.HP
7384-997
)132(
XAF
.CNI
,OIDUTS
NGISED
TPECNOC
1577-25
OWNER REVIEW 01/12/2026
Copyright c 2025 Concept Design
Studio, Inc., All Rights Reserved
ROF
STNEMPOLEVED
WEN
GNISUOH
YTIC
YAB
IM
,YTIC
YAB
,EUNEVA
SUBMULOC
105
PARKING CALC'S LEGEND WASTE COLLECTION PROPOSED UNIT MIX
TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 130 SPACES FOR THE NEW BUILDING, THE OWNERS INTENT FOR 120 TOTAL UNITS:
WASTE COLLECTION IS TO HAVE A SCREENED IN
NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ALL PARKING SPACES = 9'-0" WIDE x 19'-0" DEEP DUMPSTER LOCATION ON SITE. TRASH & - 40 ONE BEDROOMS
W/ MIN. 24'-0" DRIVE LANE RECYCLABLES WOULD BE COLLECTED BY A - 59 TWO BEDROOMS
DISPOSAL COMPANY AS NECESSARY. - 21 THREE BEDROOMS
TOTAL PARKING RATIO = 130 SPACES / 120 UNITS
NEW BITUMINOUS PAVING ACCESSIBILITY:
EXISTING FACILITY PARKING DATA PROVIDED BY BAY CITY HOUSING COMMISSION:
- TYPE 'A' BARRIER FREE UNITS = 10% SCATTERERD THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
- TOTAL VISITABLE UNITS = 93 UNITS
BLDG. 2
PROPOSED
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
(14) 2 BR
(2) 3 BR
8,301 S.F. (FP)
B
(4
L
)
D
2
G
B
.
R
3
ST
S
O
N
R
O
A
W
GE
SNOW
PROPOSED
10'-0" FRONT
YARD SETBACK
(4) 3 BR STORAGE
BLDG. 5
3,896 S.F.
(4) 2 BR
(FP) BLDG. 6
MAILBOX (4) 3 BR (4) 3 BR
DUMPSTER BLDG. 3,896 S.F.
(10) 2BR
ENCLOSURE (FP)
6,539 S.F. (FP)
EXISTING 18" STORM
Y E (12'-14' ± BELOW GRADE) /
L
L RELOCATION REQ'D
A
D EXISTING 12" STORM /
E
T SANITARY(10' ± BELOW
A
C GRADE) / TO BE REMOVED
A
V
" K
0 C
K
0'' -
B
A
K C 2 T C
A E A
B S B
T D T
E R E S S
D Y
A
D
R T R O N T Y A W A T E R 2 B ( , 4 1 L ) 3 D 3 4 G B S . R . 4 F. " F R O N T LO O T T O N T Y A B (4 L ) D 3 G B . R 7 L E Y
0' - 0 "
F R
TI N G
6 " (FP)
E D 1
0' - 0
0' - 0 "
F R 2,1
(
3
F
4
P
S
)
.F.
T E D
A L
S E
D 1
E
XI S
O P
O S
S E
D 1
V A
C A
O R O 0 "
P P P -
O O 0''
R R 2
P P
BIKE
PARKING
ZONING INFORMATION 130 SPACES
BIKE
ZONED O-1 OFFICE
PROPOSED USE = MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING (STACKED FLATS & MID-RISE)
K
C
MAX. LOT COVERAGE = 35% A
B
T MAX. HEIGHT = 3 STORIES E
S
D
SITE AREA = EXISTING C2A PARCEL: 86,288 S.F. / EXIST. O-1 PARCEL: 79,055 S.F. R
A
Y
SETBACKS = FOR PROPOSED SETBACKS REFER TO SITE PLAN. T
N
O
R
F
" 0
-
BLDG. 8 - 34 UNITS 0'
1
ZONED C2A 11,208 s.f. FLOOR PLATE D
AREA ZONING MAP BUILDING #1 - 32 UNITS GENERAL BUSINESS (3) STORIES S E
10,560 s.f. FLOOR PLATE (FP) (3) 3BR / (20) 1 BR / (11) 2 BR O P
(3) STORIES O
R
(20) 1 BR / (12) 2 BR P
Y
PROPOSED 20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
C3 R2 PROPOSED 20'-0" R N
FRONT YARD
O R2 R1 R1 R2 SETBACK A
I N T
C
I
M U
C3 R1
PROJECT PROJECT R SHEET TITLE
C2A SITE SITE L I T
C2A O-1 S
C2A E
N
PARK R
O
C2A P C
C2A C2A
R
O
F
H T SHEET NUMBER
T
R SITE PLAN (THIS IS NOT A SURVEY) O
O
N N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"