Board rules aviary is not an 'educational' or 'social service' use under zoning; directs applicant to other options

The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that an aviary or bird sanctuary is beyond the scope of the zoning ordinance definitions for an "educational use," a "social service club," or a "social service facility," a decision that city staff said will apply citywide to future aviary operators.

Rowan, a city planning staff member, outlined the applicant’s request and the planning director’s recommendation that the board interpret the avian sanctuary use as distinct from the listed definitions. The interpretation request stemmed from a zoning violation and a stop‑work order after Albatross Aviary relocated to 1620 Leonard Avenue NW; staff previously conducted a 2024 use determination that compared a bird sanctuary to a kennel for enforcement purposes, but that 2024 determination was not the interpretation the board was being asked to decide.

Applicant Jaren Tembrell described Albatross Aviary as a rescue, sanctuary and educational operator that has housed roughly 500 birds since inception, currently cares for about 100 birds in a roughly 14,000‑square‑foot facility (about 10,000 sq ft dedicated to birds and 4,000 sq ft for clinic/administration), and runs internship, observational research and partnership programs with Grand Valley and veterinary providers. “We’re not a kennel,” Tembrell said during his presentation, stressing the organization’s rehabilitative and educational work.

Greg Todd, counsel for the aviary, told the board he believes the staff’s prior characterization as a kennel was legally unsupported and urged the board to correct that classification, arguing state law definitions for kennels reference dogs and do not fit the aviary’s operations.

Board member Swenson delivered a detailed legal analysis for the interpretation question and focused on whether education or social service activities are the aviary’s primary function or ancillary. Swenson concluded that while Albatross Aviary conducts substantial educational programming and internships, those activities are separable from the aviary’s primary mission—housing, rehabilitating and providing refuge for birds—and that treating any sanctuary that hosts interns as an "educational institution" would create an ordinance inconsistency and broad, unintended land‑use consequences. Swenson moved that the board find an aviary is beyond the scope of the listed definitions; the motion passed.

The board instructed staff and the applicant to explore other regulatory pathways to keep or adapt the operation at Leonard Avenue, including whether the animal‑services definition or a special land‑use approval in a commercial district, or a site‑specific use variance, could be appropriate. City staff said they will work with the applicant to outline next steps and possible fee‑reduction options for reapplication to the appropriate process.

Outcome: The board adopted a code interpretation that an aviary/bird sanctuary is not an educational use, social service club, or social service facility under the current zoning ordinance and recommended follow‑up with planning staff on alternative permitting paths.