Public pushes East Lansing council to reject narrow zoning definition of “family”

East Lansing — The City Council held a public hearing April 22 on Ordinance 15-45, a proposed amendment to Chapter 50 of the city zoning code that would change the code’s definition of “family.” Speakers at the hearing urged the council not to reenact a narrow, categorical definition of family they said would be unconstitutional and would harm renters and residents who rely on nontraditional household arrangements.

Residents, university students and local lawyers told council members the existing proposal would exclude people who regularly live together but do not share the legal relationships the draft would list. Several speakers cited U.S. Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court precedent — including Moore v. City of East Cleveland and Delta Township v. Dinolfo — to argue that local zoning cannot adopt a restricted, enumerated list that excludes cousins, extended relatives or functional households.

Supporters of broader language told the council the issue matters to students, senior residents and multigenerational households. Mark Grebner, a longtime East Lansing resident who described past legal involvement on housing matters, cited federal and state case law and urged council members to avoid reenacting a definition that courts have found unconstitutional. Patrick Rose and others said the current zoning language excludes functional families and can expose residents to fines or enforcement.

The proposed ordinance, introduced Jan. 7 and referred to the Planning Commission, would add foster children, persons living with a dwelling-unit owner under guardianship and cousins to the list of relationships recognized as family within the zoning code. City staff told the council the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission had reviewed the amendment; the Planning Commission held public hearings Feb. 26 and March 12 and recommended the change. The city’s Age-Friendly Committee also provided comments at a recent meeting.

Several individual residents and student renters described housing conditions that they said make inclusive household definitions important. Barbara (Wallam) McClure, a lifelong resident, said she wants the ability to host and care for students and friends without those people being classified as tenants. Two Michigan State University graduate students, who identified themselves as members of the East Lansing Renters Rights Coalition, asked the council to prioritize renters’ ability to seek repairs and safe housing; they connected that request to the larger debate about who qualifies as household members.

Legal concerns dominated much of the hearing. Speaking from detailed review of case law, Grebner told council members that federal precedent bars narrow legal definitions that exclude extended kin and that Michigan law provides broader protection for “functional families.” A letter from retired judge James Giddings, read into the record by David Hopkinson, urged council members not to reenact language that “denies East Lansing residents constitutional rights to live with members of their family.” The letter also referenced Proposition 1, a recent charter amendment the speakers said protects some rights of residents and their guests; speakers said Proposition 1 did not amend the zoning code and that the city should ensure its zoning language conforms with both state and federal constitutional tests.

Council members asked staff procedural and substantive questions. Several councilors suggested considering Ordinance 15-45 together with related changes — specifically an ordinance moving some family-related language from Chapter 6 into Chapter 50 and the separate Chapter 7 rental code draft — so the body does not create inconsistent or incomplete rules. Council member questions also focused on enforcement: how the city would interpret terms such as “cousin” (first cousin, second cousin, once removed) and whether moving nieces and nephews from Chapter 6 into Chapter 50 would create unintended legal consequences.

City staff and the city attorney said the council could consider the three ordinances together at a future meeting. No final action on Ordinance 15-45 was taken April 22; the public hearing was formally closed. Council members indicated they would ask staff for additional memos — including a legal review of compliance with state and federal case law and clarification of how related ordinance changes would interact — before taking any vote.

What’s next: The council did not vote on Ordinance 15-45 at the April 22 meeting. Councilors asked staff to prepare follow-up materials and to consider bringing related zoning and rental-code items to a single future agenda for simultaneous action.