ZCTC finds accessory-dwelling-unit ordinance (File 240999) fails technical criteria; committee votes 3-0-1

The Milwaukee Zoning Code Technical Committee voted 3-0-1 that the substitute ordinance governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), File 240999, did not meet the committee's three technical criteria after staff and legal reviewers identified provisions they said could be vague or legally vulnerable.

Sam Lykling of the Department of City Development told the committee his office supports the concept of permitting ADUs but found a number of items in the draft ordinance that "would need to be addressed prior to the criteria being met," including language about deed recording, parcel/tax-parcel definitions, and discretionary design standards that might be hard to enforce.

The city attorney's office emphasized concerns about an "owner residency" provision that reads, in the ordinance draft, "the property owner shall reside in either the main dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit. This restriction shall be recorded on the deed for the property." The attorney's office representative noted pending appellate litigation in another Wisconsin municipality (City of Neenah) over related owner-residency restrictions for short-term rental regulation and warned that the state of the law on municipal authority to require owner residency could change.

"The term 'shall reside' is perhaps vague enough that it is hard to enforce," the city attorney's office representative said, adding that deed-recording requirements raise practical questions about the city's authority and how such a requirement would be implemented.

Public commenters again urged more community engagement and protections against displacement. Dr. Nicole Robinson, for the 5 Points Neighborhood Association, proposed specific protections including deed restrictions preventing short-term rental use of ADUs and long-term affordability requirements for up to eight-unit developments in any newly designated RT5 areas. Fatima Laster and others linked the ADU proposal to elements of the broader Grow MKE planning effort and urged additional data and harm analyses addressing potential displacement.

Committee members discussed alternatives including making ADUs a "special use" requiring Board of Zoning Appeals review (which would require neighborhood notice and allow objections) versus permitting ADUs as a limited use with only ministerial permitting. Several members and city staff indicated they preferred tying an owner-residency objective to the permit applicant rather than to perpetual deed restrictions, a method some other cities use to balance enforceability and legal limits.

A motion that the proposed ADU ordinance did not meet the committee's three criteria was moved and seconded. The roll call recorded votes: Ed Richardson ' Aye; Hezemil Arroyo Vega ' Aye; Joseph Dobbs ' Aye; Chair Jeff Osterman ' Abstained. The motion carried 3-0-1. The committee instructed staff to work with sponsors to redraft and to forward its findings to the appropriate subsequent review body.

The committee's action means the current ADU draft will not receive a technical recommendation from this body in its present form; sponsors and staff were asked to collaborate on clearer, enforceable language before the item advances.