Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Family Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges commission to revisit zoning definition of "family," citing constitutional opinions
Summary
During public comment April 23, resident Patrick Rose urged the Planning Commission to put review of the city's zoning definition of "family" on its agenda, saying legal opinions find the current definition unconstitutional. Commissioners and staff noted the matter has had prior public hearings and that City Council is an appropriate next forum.
During the public comment period at the April 23 East Lansing Planning Commission meeting, Patrick Rose of 310 Oxford Road urged the commission to reopen consideration of the city zoning ordinance's definition of "family," arguing the current definition violates U.S. and Michigan constitutional protections.
Rose told commissioners he had submitted a letter and legal opinion from several attorneys and experts asserting East Lansing's zoning definition of family excludes functional families and is inconsistent with Moore v. East Cleveland (1977) and a Michigan Supreme Court decision addressing similar ordinances. "I would ask each one of you to read, and I would remind you, you took an oath to uphold the state and U.S. Constitution," Rose said, urging the commission to place the item on its unfinished‑business agenda and to review the legal opinions provided.
Rose asserted the city attorney's advice had not addressed controlling case law and said the city charter language forbids discrimination based on marital or family status. "I would ask you to put us on unfinished business so that you can fix this problem or you are responsible for the problem," he said, adding he wanted the commission to hear legal opinions from outside counsel who signed the letter he submitted.
Commissioners and staff responded during the meeting's discussion items. City staff noted that the matter—identified in the meeting packet as ordinance 15‑45—has undergone prior public processes, including presentations to the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission and a public hearing at City Council. Staff said they had suggested that Rose pursue the issue with City Council, where policy and charter questions are typically resolved, and that the commission could consider the zoning language further if directed by council.
Several commissioners said they were concerned about public comments that directly criticized staff without an opportunity for staff response; one commissioner said the commission should consider a formal way to respond. Chair Sullivan and other commissioners also emphasized that the public hearing and related proceedings had provided multiple prior opportunities for public comment about the family definition.
Rose concluded his remarks asking for the commission to place the topic on an agenda for further consideration. The commission did not add the item as unfinished business at the April 23 meeting; staff said Council Member Meadows—who introduced related ordinance language to council—was expected to appear at a future meeting to discuss the matter further.
