Four bills impacting local government were introduced in the House right before the legislature took a two-week break after the elections. As legislative activities resumed this week, the bills quickly bypassed the House Subcommittee on Housing and were taken up and voted out in one committee hearing of the Committee on Economic Development and Small Business.
House Bills 6095, 6096, 6097, and 6098 amend the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act to preempt municipalities. At the committee hearing, testimony was provided that the bill package’s purpose is “to address the housing crisis that Michigan is experiencing.” The Michigan Municipal League agrees there is a housing crisis but disagrees that HB 6095-6098 will have a meaningful impact on addressing the crisis. The MML opposes all of the bills.
House Bill 6095 prohibits your zoning ordinance from requiring more than 1.5 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit.
Many municipalities have reduced parking minimums to one, have parking maximums, or have eliminated all parking standards, so we question the need to preempt. If this legislation is truly about housing affordability and that local government’s parking standards drive up the costs of development, we’ve asked that it be tied to residential housing projects dedicating a certain percentage of the dwellings or dwelling units as affordable (under 60% area median income) and workforce (60-120% AMI) in the project as well as projects receiving Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) or similar funding sources. This approach will actually tie the requirement to affordability and have measurable outcomes. It would also make more sense to look at change in areas near major transit and focus on transit-oriented development instead of the heavy-handed approach in HB 6095.
House Bill 6096 requires a local unit of government to use a blank site plan application form and customize it for each applicant, including a complete list of required studies, technical standards for the studies, and any documents needed for the site plan to be approved. No additional studies, documents, or revisions can be required of the applicant unless the scope of the application has “materially” changed or already required information is incomplete or failed to meet the technical standards specified in the blank application form.
This approach will make development more difficult, especially for small projects. Customizing each individual site plan application is not reasonable. Instead, it will require a municipality to anticipate all studies, technical study standards, and documents upfront. The list will have to be exhaustive enough to cover site plans for very large developments while subjecting small projects to the same requirements. Local units of government without capacity and in-house expertise rely on third parties to assist in the development process. Hired planning, engineering, and environmental consulting firms advise or act on behalf of the municipality and then charge for their services. If cost-cutting measures are the goal of HB 6096, we recommend looking into the costs and justifications of third-party fees and capping those if appropriate.
House Bill 6097 allows residential duplexes by right in any zoning district where a single-family dwelling is permitted. The duplex is not subject to a special or conditional use permit or procedure to which single-family residences are not subject. This applies to all local units of government located in whole or part within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or is located adjacent to a MSA.
Using MSAs to define where duplexes are mandated is confusing and encompasses many rural communities that cannot support this type of development on well and septic. It would require upping density in rural Lapeer and Allegan counties but not in downtown Mt. Pleasant or Petoskey. Municipalities already allowing duplexes by right have not seen an uptick in duplex development. We question what the mandate in HB 6097 will achieve and recommend looking into strategies to meet housing needs by looking at vacant office buildings and wasted space in commercial corridors. Underutilized road corridors with existing sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure are ripe for increasing housing supply in regions across the state.
House Bill 6098 revises the zoning ordinance amendment protest petition requirements. It extends the area outward from 100 ft to 200 ft from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change. Added language states if the amendment to the zoning ordinance will increase the authorized intensity of development, the protest petition must be signed by the owners and tenants of at least 50% of the area of land included in the proposed change or the owners and tenants of at least 50% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 200 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed changed.
The bill does not differentiate residential and commercial tenants, establish parameters for who counts as a tenant, or provide direction on whether more than one individual living in a unit gets to weigh in. What if there is a disagreement between the owner and tenant(s)? How is a conflict resolved? How are owners and tenant(s) tracked? HB 6098 needs work before it sees any additional action in the House.
Our opposition to these bills is not solely based on removing local control within the MZEA. We’ve worked hard to build relationships with stakeholders working in housing and on housing issues. Our objective has been to proactively address the housing crisis instead of blaming and pointing fingers at each other, as many other states have done. We’ve been striving to implement solutions to address Michigan’s unique needs and not just adopt so-called “common sense” policies from other states that have shown very little to no results.
Working in partnership, we’ve helped secure over $7 million in the last two budgets for the Housing Readiness Incentive Grant program. The funding specifically assists municipalities in implementing actions that encourage increasing housing supply and affordability. Municipalities, big and small, urban and rural, from all over the state have applied for and been awarded this funding to adopt and update plans and zoning requirements. Yet, before that work can be completed and the reforms put into action, these bills pull the rug right out from under a community, saying you don’t know what’s best for your community and you can only do it this way.
These bills also sideswipe all the (state) funding and hard work that went into developing the Zoning Reform Toolkit and Pattern Book Homes Vol.1 and Vol.2 projects. These vital resources assist municipalities statewide with regulatory remedies to increase housing supply, communication strategies to overcome resistance to change and encourage streamlined processes to decrease costs.
Many municipalities have been seeking out and working on housing solutions. We question the need for such drastic action (HB 6095-6098) when many communities have already taken action or are currently working on reforms.
Reach out to your state Representative(s) and let them know if you’ve already made reforms and what results have come of those changes. Let them know if you’re working on changes to address housing in your community and why it is important to have local context and not state mandates. Share with them what the reality of a blank site plan application will do to your development process (and that it is the complete opposite of what the Redevelopment Ready Communities program teaches). Ask them to oppose HB 5095-5098.
The bills currently sit on the House floor awaiting action.
Jennifer Rigterink is the League’s assistant state and federal affairs director, handling economic development, land use, and municipal services issues. She can be reached at [email protected]