Overlay in Glencairn to be Considered After Widespread Confusion, Protest
For weeks, East Lansing city meetings have been flooded with residents concerned about a rental restrictive overlay that could be put in place and cover parts of the Glencairn neighborhood.
The potential overlay first came to light to the broader community during the Nov. 28 City Council meeting when numerous residents spoke about the topic when it wasn’t even on the agenda. The overlay district was introduced after two-thirds of property owners in the proposed area signed a petition and Council approved the introduction at the Dec. 5 Council meeting.
Some residents raised concerns about the rental restriction overlay being too stringent and said it would take away homeowners’ rights. Residents also had concerns about unintended consequences that could keep them from having close friends or even caretakers stay at their homes for an extended period of time.
At the Dec. 5 Council meeting, Councilmember Erik Altmann put many of these concerns to rest after reading exemptions from needing a rental license in the city code. However, Altmann and Mayor Pro Tem Kerry Ebersole Singh agreed communication on the topic needs to be improved.
What is a rental restrictive overlay?
In an interview with ELi, Interim Director of Planning, Building and Development Annette Irwin explained what a rental restriction overlay is and how it impacts residents.
Essentially, a rental restriction overlay is added on to the existing zoning and restricts rentals in the area. The strictest type of overlay, R-0-1, is the type currently being considered and essentially prohibits all rental licenses for single family homes.

Irwin said the overlay ordinance went into effect in the early to mid-2000s to allow pockets of residents who do not want rental properties in their area to restrict the issuance of rental licenses. She said sometimes the process is triggered by just one rental license application being filed.
The ordinance requires signatures from two-thirds of property owners within a designated area to sign onto a petition, Irwin explained. Petitioners work with city staff throughout the process.
Petitioners must distribute information about the overlay 48 hours before a resident signs on to the petition. Petitioners also must hold a public meeting (for the Glencairn overlay, the meeting was held at the East Lansing Public Library (ELPL)). If enough signatures are collected, Council votes on whether or not to introduce an overlay ordinance and pass it on to the East Lansing Planning Commission.
In the case of the overlay in Glencairn, Council introduced it on the consent agenda at the Dec. 5 meeting.
At this point, there is a moratorium on rental licenses being issued in the proposed area. That moratorium meant three public hearings for rental licenses were not considered during the Dec. 7 East Lansing Housing Commission meeting because they are within the proposed area.
After the overlay is passed on to the Planning Commission, it may be amended and visited at several meetings before it is passed back to City Council. Council may then vote in favor of or against the overlay, or request that it be amended.

Irwin explained that when the overlay ordinance first went into effect, many neighborhoods adopted an overlay quickly. Currently, there are 20 overlay areas in the city, most of which are R-0-1 overlays.
Since the first few years after the overlay ordinance was approved, fewer new overlay districts have been popping up. The last time the discussion emerged was in 2019 when an overlay district was created in Shaw Estates.
Who is and is not allowed to stay for an extended period of time?
Much of the debate surrounding the overlay is potential unexpected consequences. While many of the people who oppose putting the R-0-1 overlay in place are not against the petitioners’ goal of keeping out college rentals and Airbnbs, they worry about other people who may not be able to stay in their home long term.
People who spoke against the overlay said that in East Lansing a “tenant” does not technically have to be someone who pays rent. There were concerns that caregivers for elderly residents, friends, nieces and nephews, and more would not be allowed to stay long term in homes in the overlay, because a rental license would be needed to accommodate these people.
Following public comment at the Dec. 5 Council meeting, Altmann used his communications time to clarify rental laws by breaking down how the city defines “family.” He said he had to look in multiple places in the city code to break down the impacts of an overlay and city rules, which made it tricky to obtain the information. The city overlay ordinances were the topic of numerous public comments during the Nov. 28 City Council meeting.

“It’s a little hard to find some of this stuff,” Altmann said. “I had to take the intervening week to do my homework.”
Altmann said he believes the ordinances surrounding overlays were carefully crafted to address concerns that speakers raised over the past couple of weeks, but the city could do a better job of presenting the relevant information.
Altmann started by reading the definition of a family, which was a major concern for many speakers who were unsure how inclusive the city defined the term. Altmann started by giving the examples of who is included in a family (spouse, child, grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.) and later cited a different part of the code that included nieces and nephews.
Altmann also explained who else could stay in a home under the “domestic unit” definition in the code.
“A domestic unit shall be given the same rights and privileges and shall have the same duties and responsibilities as a family,” Altmann read. “Domestic unit shall mean a collective number of individuals living together in one dwelling unit, whose relationship is of a regular and permanent nature, and having a distinct domestic character or demonstrable and recognizable bond where each party is responsible for the basic material needs of the other, and all are living and cooking as a single housekeeping unit.”
Altmann said a friend coming out of rehab, a scenario given by a resident at the Nov. 28 meeting, is “exactly the kind of situation that is contemplated” by a domestic unit.
Altmann addressed how “open-ended” the definition of a domestic unit is. The section spoke to a primary reason why some residents wanted the overlay – keeping student rentals out of the neighborhood.
“This definition shall not include any society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, combine, federation group, coterie or organization,” Altmann read. “Nor shall include a group of individuals whose association is temporary, or seasonal in character or nature, or for the limited duration of their education.”
Altmann also read parts of the code that allow exceptions for house sitters and renting out to others while the owner is on a sabbatical, addressing concerns of others who had spoken earlier in the night or at the previous meeting. Altmann explained the exemption allows unrelated people to stay in a person’s home for two years in a five-year period without a rental license. Altmann said the homeowner must fill out paperwork that includes contact information. Irwin told ELi after the meeting this is so the city can reach out if problems arise with the temporary tenants.
Altmann also read off a list of exemptions that include medical caregiver, visiting clergy, exchange students and people providing childcare, addressing other concerns that have been raised at meetings.
Irwin cosigned Altmann’s explanation of exemptions, telling ELi the Council member did a “great job” explaining the exemptions.
After clarifying rules around the overlays, Altmann said the overlay restrictions have been a “very popular policy” after they were initiated around 20 years ago. In fact, he said the most common complaint he heard from residents living in an overlay district is that they are not enforced enough. He said about half the city, geographically, falls within an overlay.
“People tell me ‘We moved into this area because of the overlay. But now the people down the street are parents who bought a house for their kids to go to MSU,’” Altmann said. “Those are the concerns I hear more frequently.”
The debate about overlays and rental laws will continue.
The overlay district introduced at the Dec. 5 meeting has not gone into effect and still needs to go through the Planning Commission and City Council before the ordinance is put in place. This means debate about the R-0-1 overlay will likely continue.
Many of those who came out to speak against the overlay were clear they are not against overlay restrictions, but would prefer a less restrictive overlay or simply to have more time to figure out more details about what changes would be made.
Some residents have complained about the petition process.

Patrick Rose, a resident living in the proposed overlay area, told ELi some residents who signed the petition later regretted it. However, unlike in elections where early voters can contact the clerk for a retraction, the City Clerk’s office does not handle retractions. Irwin said that the petition circulators are in charge of handling signatures and retractions.
Irwin said she believes two people were able to get retractions. But Rose claims seven people were attempting to get their signatures removed around the time the petition was given to the clerk. With needing signatures from two-thirds of the property owners in the proposed district that includes 149 addresses, a few signatures can be significant.
In this case, an agenda report shows the petition initially failed when it was presented to the clerk on Nov. 16 because it only gathered 95 of a required 99.3 signatures. Circulators were informed there were insufficient signatures on Nov. 28. They were then able to gather five additional signatures prior to the Dec. 5 meeting.
The overlay rules do specify that if a petition is given to the clerk but has insufficient signatures, it is to be returned to the circulator and allow them to continue to collect signatures. Rose pointed out that the process makes it difficult for someone who may want a retraction to know if the petition is live or not.
With the petition process over, Irwin recommends residents who oppose the R-0-1 voice their concerns to the Planning Commission and City Council, where the topic will appear on future agendas.
Overlay districts have a history of controversy in East Lansing.
This isn’t the first time a proposed overlay district has been controversial. In 2019, the Shaw Estates overlay district narrowly passed a 3-2 vote from Council. Notably, two members who voted in favor of the overlay, Altmann and Councilmember Mark Meadows, were re-elected to Council in November.

In 2019, the debate looked quite different. That year, the Council members who voted against the measure, Aaron Stephens and Shanna Draheim, voiced concerns about the impact that yet another overlay would have on renters in the city.
“I think we need to be frank when we’re talking about the difference between renters and renting,” ELi quoted Draheim as saying in the 2019 meeting. “We have university-adjacent neighborhoods populated by student renters … often with high volume and high turnover each year. In this case, we had one rental license application. I don’t see that as an inordinate amount of pressure on this neighborhood.
“We have a need for rental housing in this city and in this region for people who are not students, families in particular,” Draheim continued in the 2019 meeting. “Someone mentioned that there are apartments right across the street [from Shaw Estates]. Well, there are people, raising kids, who don’t want to live in an apartment. There are families and couples who want to rent so that they can have a yard and a garden, and things like that.”
The Council majority that voted to approve the overlay in 2019 cited their belief that neighborhood residents should be able to determine the future of the neighborhood.
What constitutes a “family” or “domestic unit” in the city will continue to be a topic of discussion for residents who are concerned about potential violations for renting without a license. The city’s full definition of family can be found here.
As the process pushes forward, it appears the city will look to improve its communications on what is and is not allowed in overlay districts and under the city’s rental laws.
“I think this only proves the point that, whether it’s events to have presentations on what is and is not included [in exemptions], communications on social media…, we need to up our game [communicating],” Singh said at the Dec. 5 Council meeting. “This is something that I will be working with the city manager on.”
Correction: The 2019 overlay debate involved Shaw Estates. This story has been corrected.
Did you know that East Lansing is the only municipality in our region with the kind of independent coverage of local government that ELi provides? If you value this nonprofit news service, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution TODAY. Learn more about our Annual Campaign here, and find all your donation options here. Got a question? Write to us.