By Scott Sullivan
Editor
Page 82 of this Thursday’s Saugatuck Planning Commission agenda packet lists learning that PC member C.J. Bagierek has likely operated a short-term rental on his 610 Lake St. properly illegally as a “Learning and Improvement Opportunity.”
In the last New Business item on the 139-page March 19 PC docket, city manager Ryan Cummins apprises members Bagierek has rented an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) there without a special land use permit in violation of city code for the entire duration of his PC tenure since Dec. 12, 2022.
Bagierek, said Cummins, citing city records, acquired 610 Lake St. in September 2017. The parcel contains a principal dwelling with two bedrooms along with a garage containing a second floor ADU connected to the main house by a covered breezeway.
Granicus records, which the city began using in October 2024 upon adopting a new STR ordinance, show that the property was listed as an STR on hosting sites in October 2017 with stays beginning that month and continuing thereafter.
The city sent Bagierek an enforcement letter for an unlicensed STR in December 2021, prompting him to apply for an STR certificate under the city’s previous zoning regulations, which was issued in June of 2022.
His application indicated that it was for a 4- bedroom unit with a maximum occupancy of 8 people, Cummins continued. This occupancy would only be possible if both the principal dwelling and ADU were rented as an STR.
Bagierek applied for an STR license under the city’s new STR regulations on Oct. 14, 2025. Unlike the 2022 STR certificate application, the STR license application listed a proposed occupancy of only two guests.
Concurrently with the new application, Bagierek also applied for a special land use permit to rent the attached ADU separately from the principal dwelling on the property.
A few neighbors voiced objections at the time, said Cummins, prompting him to examine the property’s rental history via Granicus along with the city approvals that had previously been issued for it.
The city manager found that the ADU had been rented separately from the principal dwelling for some time.
“When the STR certificate was issued for the property in 2022,” he says in his pre-PC meeting notes for this Thursday, March 19, “it appeared that the ADU had been rented separately from the principal dwelling for some time.
“When the STR certificate was issued for the property in 2022,” said Cummins, “the city’s ADU zoning regulations relevantly provided, ‘The rental of an accessory dwelling unit independently from the rental of the single-family detached dwelling on the same parcel shall be prohibited without receiving special land use approval from the planning commission.’
“In addition, the city’s STR regulations stated, ‘In no event shall the owner of the STR unit or their agent rent solely an individual room in the unit to a person, family or other group of persons, nor shall the renter of the dwelling so sublet any room. All dwelling units rented for short-term use shall be fully rented under a single contract.’
“Under these provisions,” Cummins review noted, “the ADU could not be rented separately unless a special land use permit was issued by the planning commission. Further, even if the ADU was considered part of the principal dwelling, it would have been unlawful to rent that portion of the dwelling out separately from the rest of the property.”
“It is unclear from the City’s records whether Commissioner Bagierek ever rented out the entire Property under a single contract. BS&A records for the property show a homestead date of Sept. 30, 2017, and that a principal residence exemption is still being claimed.
“When the city sent Bagierek a violation letter for an unlicensed STR in 2021, it included a screenshot of the STR listing for the property advertising an “entire rental unit” with a single bedroom and occupancy for two guests, stating, ‘you’ll have the entire apartment to yourself,’” Cummins said.
What’s been learned and, perhaps should be improved?
“The following questions,” said Cummins, “are provided to assist the planning commission in having a discussion about how to avoid such issues in the future:
• Do planning commissioners see areas of confusion in the city’s ADU and STR regulations that could be improved?
• Are there specific terms or concepts that would benefit from clearer definitions in the zoning ordinance or STR regulations?
• To what extent should Planning Commissioners rely on BS&A/GIS records, tax classifications and prior informal conversations with staff or others?
• What steps should commissioners take when records, listings or physical conditions appear inconsistent with zoning definitions?
• If there is uncertainty about a property’s use or other zoning matters, how should this be handled?
• What best practices should guide voluntary disclosure by commissioners when they own property subject to regulations frequently reviewed by the planning commission?
• Should there be clearer expectations for commissioners to raise potential personal compliance issue proactively, even if they believe they are operating lawfully?
• Are there specific trainings that would be beneficial for planning commissioners?
• What are the key lessons the planning commission should take away from this situation?
• What actions can the commission commit to that will help prevent
similar issues in the future?
This report was shared with the City Attorney. The City Attorney will be at the meeting to help answer any questions.
This Thursday’s meeting will start at 7 p.m in city hall, 102 Butler St. The city attorney will be present to address questions, Cummins said.
