Non-conforming housing ordinances, which limit updates landlords make to some homes, are one step closer to being changed. East Lansing City Council set public hearings for two of the four related proposed ordinances.
Ordinances 1380 and 1382 were moved to public hearings on Nov. 9. Two other proposed ordinances and a recommendation from the city’s planning commission were also heard at the council’s Oct. 18 meeting.
Ordinance 1380 allows the East Village area, between Bogue Street and Hagadorn Road and Grand River Avenue and the Red Cedar River, to allow building increases up to 20 percent of the square footage of the property.
The other three ordinances — 1381, 1382 and 1383 — are about changes to non-conforming properties in all of East Lansing. Tim Dempsey, director of planning, building and development, said those proposed ordinances were the main focus.
“They pertain to what’s the crux of the issue,” Dempsey said.
A public hearing for Ordinance 1382 passed unanimously, while public hearings for Ordinance 1381 and 1383 did not pass council.
Mayor Mark Meadows voted against a public hearing for Ordinance 1381. He said in the meeting the council should focus on the ordinances that were most highly-recommended.
“I believe we should go forward with ones we know we’ll vote on,” Meadows said.
Ordinance 1382 proposes to allow any interior changes and additions of up to 20 percent of the square footage of a property above ground. Dempsey said the planning commission described the ordinance as the most permissive of the three proposed ordinances.
Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Beier said the council moved Ordinance 1382 to a public hearing because it was the best option, by the planning commission’s recommendation.
“We could only choose one because they conflicted with each other,” Beier said. “We went with the one that was most recommended. The one we’re going with was recommended by the planning commission.”
Even though they only moved one of the three forward, Beier said they were just recommendations and the council can amend the proposed ordinances with ideas from the other two.
“I’m not sure if people have thought about this, but once people start talking about this we can amend it however we want,” Beier said. “Just because we start with this one doesn’t mean we can’t add pieces to it.”
Ordinance 900, which put the non-conforming zoning into place, was intended to create more single-family homes, Beier said. The goal at the time was to move students into more fitting housing and decrease the value of the homes so that they eventually become family homes instead of student housing.
With these possible changes, the goal could be shifting, Beier said.
“To go in this direction we’re going, which is let them improve, goes against (the) theory of the nonconforming ordinance, because making improves will improve the value,” she said. “Left alone, I don’t think we’d do this at all. There’s a good argument to be made that we’re finally starting to see these results and that students are shifting towards new developments that are student-friendly. The argument that the nonconforming committee was convinced by was that at some point by implementing this ordinance, we affected student housing, which was never the intention.”
