Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff to review zoning definition of “family” and single‑room occupancy standards
Summary
The planning director asked commissioners whether the city should expand the zoning definition of 'family' beyond the existing limit on unrelated occupants and consider a distinct single‑room occupancy (SRO) classification; staff will bring amendments to the planning commission in coming months.
Planning Director Mike Franzak presented the commission with a review of the city’s zoning definition of “family,” which currently limits unrelated occupants in a single dwelling and traces its language to earlier ordinances. Franzak said the definition—long part of zoning codes—does not match current housing patterns and can make common living arrangements technically nonconforming.
Franzak summarized definitions from other Michigan cities: some allow up to four unrelated persons, others allow up to six adults in certain circumstances, and a few jurisdictions rely on functional‑family tests that consider shared housekeeping responsibilities. He told commissioners the city receives few formal complaints but that nonprofit housing providers, sober‑living operators and reentry programs sometimes place residents in shared homes that exceed the current unrelated‑occupant limits.
The director proposed increasing the allowed number of unrelated occupants (for example, to four) and creating an SRO/boarding house classification with registration and standards for rental operations where rooms are rented separately. He said a numerical cutoff is easier to enforce than “functional family” tests that hinge on who cooks or cleans together. Franzak recommended zone‑based rules that permit higher‑occupancy living types in districts intended for higher density or for buildings repurposed for SROs.
Commissioners discussed tradeoffs. Some said tighter regulation is needed to avoid overcrowding and health/safety issues; others cautioned against creating rules that unintentionally limit affordable shared housing for students or lower‑income residents. Several commissioners favored adopting a numerical cap (examples cited included four unrelated persons or up to six adults used by Grand Rapids) and adding SRO provisions for buildings suited to higher turnover and rooming arrangements.
Franzak said he would prepare formal code amendments for the planning commission to review, likely in April or May, that would propose specific numeric limits, SRO definitions and registration or inspection triggers for non‑owner‑occupied boarding houses or SRO operations.
