Alpena council declines proposed "commercial rooming house" zoning change, cites state and federal housing law

The Alpena City Council voted not to support a proposed change to the city zoning ordinance that would have allowed a commercial-style rooming house, saying the draft would likely conflict with state and federal housing law.

City staff attorney Bill Fiverr told the council the proposed ordinance raised legal problems, chiefly that it sought to limit occupancy by familial status and would allow shared kitchen access for multiple unrelated occupants — both points he said would likely fail legal review. "First 1, is based on familial status. I don't think that, under the proposed use that it can be limited to only those individuals age 18 or older," Fiverr said. He also warned the ordinance's allowance of shared kitchen access resembled a commercial rooming house the Michigan housing law does not permit in the proposed form.

The item had been forwarded by the planning commission, which considered the change earlier. Fiverr said the planning commission had not had the benefit of the legal memo when it voted and recommended the council notify the commission that "the action they took, we don't believe, would pass legal muster." He offered to review the memo with planning commissioners if the council wished.

After discussion, Councilman Mitchell moved that the council "vote not to support this proposal and not to send it back to planning commission." Mayor Pro Tem Walczak seconded the motion. The motion passed on voice/roll-call with council members recording aye votes.

Council members who spoke said they did not support the proposal as drafted; no council member advocated sending the ordinance back to planning commission for revision. Staff advised that if council wants to pursue a similar policy, it would need to be redrafted to comply with the Michigan housing law and with federal protections for familial status.

The council indicated staff should notify the planning commission of the council's finding that the earlier action was unlikely to withstand legal review rather than asking the commission to reconsider the draft as-is.