By: Gary Winkelman | Sterling Heights Sentry | Published March 10, 2026
STERLING HEIGHTS — The Sterling Heights City Council is taking a stand against proposed state legislation that would restrict local control over housing developments.
On March 3, officials unanimously passed a resolution opposing a four-bill package of legislation that would reduce lot and dwelling sizes and other housing-related matters municipal governments regulate through local zoning laws.
The bipartisan legislation covered in House Bills 5529 through 5532 is aimed at increasing housing affordability and availability throughout Michigan.
Sterling Heights officials say they are in favor addressing the state’s housing crisis but oppose a one-size-fits-all solution that limits local control.
According to its resolution, “The City recognizes and shares the State of Michigan’s goal of improving housing availability; however, the City is concerned that broad zoning preemption mandates oversimplify the drivers of housing access and would create significant unintended consequences for communities that have planned infrastructure and adopted land use policies to serve residents responsibly.”
Officials said the legislation, if passed and signed into law, would prohibit local governments from requiring a minimum parcel or lot size greater than 1,500 square feet for a detached single-family residence. The fallout could mean a substantial and abrupt increase in potential density in Sterling Heights’ lowest-density residential neighborhoods.
“The City is concerned that blanket statewide mandates, including changes to minimum lot sizes and related dimensional standards, could dramatically alter community character, increase residential density in established neighborhoods beyond what local infrastructure and service capacity were designed to support, and limit the City’s ability to require appropriate mitigations from development proposals,” the resolution states.
During a presentation to the City Council, City Planner Jake Parcell pointed out some differences between Sterling Heights’ current housing standards and the proposed state mandates.
Currently, the city’s standard minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. The state proposal sets a minimum of 1,500 square feet. The city’s existing minimum allowed dwelling size is 1,000 square feet. The proposed legislation sets a 500-square-foot minimum.
Setback comparisons show the city requirements of 30 feet in front, 15 feet on the sides and 25 feet in the rear. That could change to 15 feet for the front and 5 feet for sides and rear.
Parcell noted several ways the city is already exploring the housing availability goals of the proposed state legislation and said those efforts would be thwarted if state mandates are imposed.
“We’ve put housing at the forefront of nearly everything we do in the office of planning and everything that would be put forth in these state bills would kind of work to take that away from what we’re doing in Sterling Heights,” he said.
Council members said the state should be partnering with municipalities for housing solutions rather than preempting local authority.
“All of us have said that the housing shortage is an issue that we need to address and tackle,” Mayor Michael Taylor said, adding that he believes “cities have a moral obligation” to address the issue.
“I think it’s a positive thing that the state is looking at housing and trying to figure out a way to make it easier to build affordable housing,” he said. “We should work with them collaboratively.”
He said the message to lawmakers should be, “We stand ready to work with you and partner with you to figure out ways that this can be done collaboratively and proactively but not in a way that completely removes local control.”
Mayor Pro Tem Liz Sierawski said the possibility of forfeiting local authority would be “a travesty.”
“Good government is about allowing the representatives of that government to represent the people and listen to the people,” she said. Sterling Heights should not lose the ability “to make our city look the way we want it, and the way the residents tell us they want it.”
Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko pointed to other areas where the state has usurped local control and said all-encompassing mandates cause more harm than good.
“I don’t know what their motivation is. Why are they once again taking local control out of our hands?” she said. “We know how to run our city. We know how to run our budgets.
We know what our city is. We know what it wants to look like. … These bills are not in the best interests of our community.”
Councilman Michael Radtke said there are “some good things” in the proposed legislation, “but they are outweighed by all of the bad.”
“Let’s be clear: These are developer-driven bills,” he said. “They’re blaming everyone else for the choices that they’ve made.”
Since being introduced, the bipartisan legislation hasn’t gained much traction. The bills were referred to the Committee on Government Operations on March 3.
State Rep. Joe Aragona, R-Clinton Township, a leading sponsor of the legislation, told C & G Newspapers that citizens want the Legislature to focus on housing affordability, but he doesn’t expect lawmakers will act quickly.
“We’re looking at all of this holistically,” said Aragona, whose district includes Macomb and Clinton townships. “It’s going to take a while to get through this. But the message we want to send is we want to be serious about housing. We want to figure out a solution to the problem.”