Overlay Information Session Draws Big Crowd

After the Jan. 10 Planning Commission meeting where over an hour was allotted to discussion of the proposed Glencairn neighborhood rental restriction overlay (RRO) district, a special meeting to address public confusions and concerns was held Wednesday (Jan. 17.) 

The meeting – led by City Manager Robert Belleman; Planning, Building and Development Interim Director Annete Irwin; City Attorney Anthony Chubb; and Principal Planner Landon Bartley – was organized because city officials believed a dedicated session would benefit community members.

“We really just wanted to have a discussion with the neighbors and make sure that we are getting that information out, clearing up any misinformation and answering questions,” Bartley said.

The meeting was well attended by members of the Glencairn neighborhood, as well as City Council members and East Lansing real estate professionals. While there were many who came into the meeting with strong emotions, the meeting remained civil and was carried out as planned without significant interruption.

A Powerpoint presentation gives overlay district information.

The first half of the meeting was dedicated to a Powerpoint presentation by the meeting organizers to clear up common confusions and misconceptions about the districts. In the presentation, they addressed a wide array of topics, including the history of RROs in East Lansing, the current types of RROs that exist and where they are located throughout the city, the processes and stipulations for petitions to create a new RRO, the three different types of RROs allowed in East Lansing, the legal definitions of terms such as  “family” and “childcare” as it pertains to RRO legislation in East Lansing, and outlined exemptions to rental license requirements, among other topics.

The presentation process went mostly without interruption. There were several questions from audience members, such as whether the two-thirds of homeowners’ signatures needed for a petition had leniency for narrowly missed margins and how the city handles instances where an individual wants to withdraw their signature from a petition. Bartley clarified there is no leniency in the signature margins and that the withdrawal of signatures can be done on a case-by-case basis with the city clerk, but only for a limited time before signatures need to be counted.

However, one man who, after being called on, expressed discontent with the borders of the proposed RRO and that he had not been given a petition or information about the proposed RRO when it was first brewing. The man, who did not identify himself, repeatedly interjected into the answers being given by Bartley and Chubb, further expressing his discontent.

“We live in a house on Oxford Road,” the man said. “Across the street… they all did receive petitions to sign. We are the south side of Oxford. It was one block that was totally excluded. We were not given any information, nor a chance to sign the petition. We certainly would’ve if we could’ve. We’ve been in that house over 45 years, we raised our kids there, we are a central part of that community and we are not being given a chance to be involved in this overlay? That is totally unfair.” 

The man left the meeting quickly after it ended and, therefore, was not available for follow-up questions from ELi.

Proposed Glencairn RRO concerns, questions lead public comment.

The final portion of the meeting was devoted to public comment, giving audience members the opportunity to ask questions of the presenters. Numerous concerns and questions were posed regarding the proposed Glencairn RRO, as well as the implications and realities of how it will be regulated and how its exemptions will be observed.

Several members of the community were concerned with the exemptions and rules regarding who can occupy a home legally, and for how long.

“It’s odd to me that visiting clergy are allowed without rental licenses, but not visiting scientists,” Alice Dreger said.

“So a family can’t have a boarder, but a person who happens to be single is allowed to have a boarder? That is odd,” a citizen who did not identify themself said.

City officials confirmed this was true and that, according to the ordinance, only a single person would be allowed to have a boarder in their home if the RRO were to be approved.

There were also those who expressed concerns with the current borders of the proposed RRO, how they could be changed and how it will affect people living just outside of its borders.

“I was originally included in the overlay,” Ricardo Mejia said. “But when the overlay was changed, I was excluded. It’s not just me and my neighbor. There’s several of us who would like to be included.” 

“If the Planning Commission hears a collection of citizens that feel they want to expand the overlay itself, then that would be presented to the Council. Wouldn’t there be some notice sent to the residents that would be impacted by the extension of the overlay?” Peter Dewan asked.

“There would be a public hearing notice,” Irwin responded.

There were also those who wanted to express thanks and gratitude for the informational meeting and the opportunity to create an RRO in Glencairn.

“I wanted to thank you for putting together the presentation tonight,”  Beverly Bonning said. “I know your time is valuable and I thought it was a very informative presentation, and I appreciate the expertise involved in that, so thank you… I think all of us appreciate the effort in that regard.”

The next step in the Glencairn RRO District will happen Wednesday (Jan. 24), when the Planning Commission will vote on whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the overlay. A link to the recording of the overlay meeting can be found here.