Zoning technical committee ties 2-2 on proposed RT5 district after staff flag technical inconsistencies

The Milwaukee Zoning Code Technical Committee deadlocked 2-2 on a motion finding that the substitute ordinance to create an RT5 zoning district (File 240997) did not meet the committee's technical criteria, after staff from the Department of City Development identified textual inconsistencies that could undermine enforceability.

The committee considers proposals for "legality and enforceability, administrative efficiency, and consistency with the format of the zoning code," Chair Jeff Osterman said at the start of the hearing. The proposed RT5 district would establish a new zoning classification that, sponsors say, would apply only when a parcel is rezoned to RT5 and would therefore trigger public hearings before the City Plan Commission and Common Council.

Department of City Development planner Sam Lykling told the committee his office conducted an initial technical review after receiving the proposed ordinance and sent members a memo documenting items that "need to be corrected or adjusted before we believe the criteria ... are met." Lykling said some of the concerns were minor drafting errors but noted that one specific contradiction in the ordinance's purpose statement and its table of standards could make enforcement difficult.

"The proposed language ... appears to be slightly mistransposed from another section," a committee member said, pointing to the subsection describing lot sizes, setbacks and lot coverage. That member said the purpose statement described different standards than the table for RT5, creating a contradiction "that would make it difficult to enforce, defend, and explain which of those takes precedence." The committee discussed whether a single numerical correction could resolve the issue.

Alderman Robert Baumann, a sponsor of the ordinance, said the intent is to create a new district that allows a denser two-family residential form only where parcels are rezoned, preserving neighborhood review through public hearings. "This actually gives neighborhoods more power in the event there is a desire ... to upzone a particular parcel," Baumann said.

Multiple residents and neighborhood representatives urged the committee to require broader community engagement and more protections for existing homeowners. Elizabeth Ramirez of the Eighth District said she opposed RT5 and the companion accessory-dwelling-unit ordinance because of a "lack of community engagement specifically for our South Side community and Spanish speakers," and asked the city to confirm that submitted letters were in the public record. Mark Foley, a Northpointe Historic District homeowner, told the committee that once zoning changes permit denser uses, "these things only go in one direction." Dr. Nicole Robinson, speaking for the 5 Points Neighborhood Association, urged procedural transparency and proposed a series of community protections to be considered in future drafts.

Committee members debated whether the issues raised were "minor, fixable items" or whether they were sufficiently unclear to warrant a negative finding at this stage. A motion was made that the proposed ordinance did not meet the committee's three technical criteria. The roll call on that motion recorded votes as follows: Member Ed Richardson ' Yes; Member Hezemil Arroyo Vega ' No; Member Joseph Dobbs ' Yes; Chair Jeff Osterman ' No. The motion resulted in a 2-2 tie and therefore did not carry.

After the vote, the committee chair said he would draft a letter to the Zoning, Neighborhoods, and Development Committee summarizing the motion and vote and that staff would identify the corrections needed. Department staff said they could prepare corrected language quickly but indicated additional review time would be appropriate.

The committee then moved to the next agenda item, a separate substitute ordinance addressing accessory dwelling units (File 240999).