SHELBY - The Shelby Village Council addressed a lengthy agenda at a nearly three-hour meeting Monday night.
While there were regular reports to share and new resolutions to consider, two items consumed the better part of the evening. A zoning variance request and a number of suggested ordinance revisions.
With the first, the council voted to suspend their regular council meeting shortly after 6 p.m. and to convene as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), with the express purpose of considering a variance application from Terry Simon, the owner of two adjoining parcels at 583 and 569 S. State St. on the south end of the village (InLoop LLC). Simon would like to remodel the 583 S. State St. structure (formerly used as a storage building with no utilities) into a single-family residence to include four bedrooms and two-and-a-half baths, with live/work capabilities; in addition, convert the 569 S. State St. structure (formerly used as a small warehouse/office space) into a garage to support that use, the memo to council read.
“The Zoning Board of Appeals - performed by the village council - may grant a variance when an applicant demonstrates a practical difficulty in meeting the strict requirements of the ordinance. A variance may only be approved when the spirit and intent of the ordinance are upheld, public safety is proceeded, and substantial justice is served,” the memo continued.
The request would be for remodeling of the current buildings only, no other changes to property lines or infrastructure are being requested.
“I’ve owned the building for 13 years and have loved working here and with the village,” Simon told council. “I’m willing to do what is needed and what the council thinks is best. I can put as much or as little into it as necessary to make it a liveable home. I can sell it commercially too. I’m going to take my direction from you.”
He said for $140,000 he could make the storage building into a very functional house, or for $200,000 plus, he could make it a very nice house. “Either way it will need a new roof,” he added. “I’m basically trying to recoup my costs.”
When asked about the size of the yard on the parcels, Simon explained that because of previous drainage issues (that have since been rectified), he installed “rain gardens” around both buildings. He personally likes the natural look of wildflowers and the rain gardens, but realizes that not everyone does, and perhaps different landscaping could be added later.
During ZBA deliberation, Village Administrator Phil Morse reviewed the location of neighboring businesses and residences adjoining the parcels, as well as the permitted and special uses within a C-2 zoning district.
Prior to approval or denial of the request, the council needed to determine if specific standards were met, including: can the property owner demonstrate that said property cannot be reasonably used under current zoning; what unique characteristics or conditions create hardship for use; how do these differ from neighboring properties; can property owner prove hardship was not created by their own actions; how will proposed use ensure character of surrounding area is maintained; and what supporting documents or studies are provided to back up the request.
At the vote, all council members, Steve Crothers, Samantha Gottschalk, Crystal Heykoop, Mike Termer, Curt Trott, Dan Zaverl and Village President John Sutton, voted to approve the request. There being no other business to come before the ZBA, the meeting was closed and the village council meeting was reconvened.
With regard to the proposed ordinance revisions, Morse prefaced the discussion, saying that by law the village is only required to put revisions on the agenda, review and vote on them as a council, then give a 15-day notice in a local newspaper of when changes will take effect. “Not that I want a pat on the back, but I think we (went) above and beyond what the law requires by doing a Facebook post as well as a news post on our website, so people are aware. I think it is the right thing to do. The community may have good feedback we haven’t thought of or didn’t catch,” said Morse.
Morse also read two letters the village had received from concerned citizens, Damien Omness and Corbett Dodge, who shared their comments related to some of the proposed revisions.
Considering the reaction Morse and others have seen on social media since, he said it is obvious the community has feedback and questions. There were eight ordinances discussed Monday, but no formal voting occurred. Proposed revisions will be up for final discussion and a vote at the council’s March 23 regular council meeting.
The ordinance revisions up for discussion included: Right-of-Way (Chapter 430-4), Junk Vehicles (Chapter 250), Animals (Chapter 100-12) Confinement of animals; number of dogs and cats which may be kept; and Chapter 100-15 Livestock and poultry), Smoking (Chapter 170-2 Unlawful acts in public parks), Sidewalk Operations (Chapter 112-2 Operation on certain sidewalks; duty to yield to pedestrians), Burning (Chapter 403-1 Recreational burning), Casual Sale (Chapter 366-6) and Refuse Containers (Chapter 355).
Suggested revisions to Junk Vehicles, Smoking, Sidewalk Operations, Burning and Casual Sale ordinances were minimal, discussion was limited, and council, for the most part, seemed in agreement with them. The remaining three ordinance revisions were discussed at greater length, with Sutton allowing several comments from the public.
The proposed revisions for village right-of-way (ROW) include a list of excavations and obstructions that are not allowed to be placed by a landowner within the village ROW. Morse gave the example of an incident within the recent past where the village needed to repair someone’s sprinkler system due to damage done by a village-hired contractor, “We’re not trying to be power hungry, but we may need to service what is underground. It is the village('s) responsibility to restore the ROW, and the more people are allowed to put there, the more the village is liable and responsible for.”
Gottschalk wondered if there was any way to take the liability off the village for damage so residents can do what they want. “Some people literally can’t do anything with their yards because of space,” she added.
Driveways are not included in the list of exclusions.
Bringing the most discussion Monday were the suggested revisions to the village’s Animals ordinance. “This chapter is almost completely rewritten. Cats are the big difference. There’s no limit on cats (right now),” Morse said.
Several residents and the village council agreed there are too many stray cats in town, however, some animal lovers do feel compelled to feed strays who may come to their doorstep. Heykoop, chair of the Ordinance committee, said, “The humane society or animal shelter will not step in because the idea is the animal is being cared for. We were told we need an ordinance, or we can’t call the humane society.”
Police Chief Dean Roesler added, “We’re not going to go door-to-door and ask how many cats you have. We’re not going to be the cat nazis.”
A better Animals ordinance was the suggested solution to control the number of stray cats, he said. The village would be able to call animal control, who could “live trap” and remove them.
In addition, there have been some unfortunate encounters with unleashed dogs and residents in the village - with one altercation even going to court. However, according to Mike Garcia, the county’s animal control officer, because the village did not have a strong enough ordinance, the case was thrown out.
With regard to the keeping of poultry within village limits, discussion centered around how many birds should be allowed; what square footage is appropriate for the number of poultry; are the birds a nuisance to neighbors; and are acceptable Michigan GAAMPS (Generally Accepted and Management Practices) being adhered to.
Dodge, who wrote the letter Morse read, was present at the meeting and told council he currently has 27 chickens and one rooster. He added that he was not aware he was out of compliance when he moved to the village in the spring of 2025. He said he looked at the ordinances ahead of time and was following the ordinance as written then. His goal is to raise chickens for eggs, as well as meat production.
When asked by Gottschalk about “ground feeding,” Morse said the main concern with that revision would be to keep animal feed up off the ground as much as possible in order to prevent an increase in vermin. The village realizes some food will fall on the ground and chickens do need to scratch the ground to maintain their overall health.
When Morse asked council members if the number of birds allowed in the proposed revision (four for 6000 square feet; eight for 10,000 square feet and 12 for one acre) should be increased, Termer recommended the village allow one rooster and 15 birds per acre. Questions about laying hens versus meat birds and whether Dodge would be grandfathered in were not answered directly. “As long as birds are maintained and neighbors are okay with it,” Heykoop added, is where the Animals ordinance revision discussion ended.
As far as the proposed Refuse Containers revision, Morse said it was meant to address the leaving of containers out all the time, especially in the winter months. “We’re not talking about waste companies' pick-up delays or elderly people who have to wait for someone to help them, but for those who leave them out all year,” Morse explained.
“I’ve never been told that I should move my trash bin away from the road,” Gottschalk said.
“I also leave mine out. There are no other houses on my block, but I try to keep it out of the road,” audience member Alex Katt said.
Termer said he understood where the village and Ordinance committee were coming from with these revisions, but said, “People should be allowed to do what they want with their property. I don’t feel these revisions are needed at all. It feels like we’re playing big brother. It’s overkill. We’re making these rules for a handful of people. Why not just talk to them?”
Throughout Monday’s meeting Morse mentioned several times there’s a difference between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law." “We realize there’s a human equation too,” he said.
Chief Roesler added, “We have to have standards, rules to help govern our community and contribute to its appeal.”
Note: Following several months of review, committee meetings and updates, the Village of Shelby approved a 264-page “Codified Ordinances of the Village of Shelby” in October of 2024. This document can be found online at the village website www.shelbyvillage.com under the “Government” tab.
