Bill
HB 6096
HB 6096 limits local review to require new or revised studies after site-plan submission only if prior work was incomplete or the project scope changed, speeding housing projects.
Status and timeline
- Introduced Nov. 13, 2024 by Rep. Kristian Grant; referred to the Committee on Economic Development and Small Business.
- Committee reported the bill without amendment (Dec. 4, 2024); a substitute (H‑2) was adopted Dec. 13, 2024.
- Read a second time and placed on third reading Dec. 13, 2024. (Statutory citation amended: MCL 125.3501.)
Purpose
- To limit when a local unit of government may require additional or revised studies or documents after a site plan application has been submitted (and to clarify application form requirements), with the stated aim of reducing duplicative review, shortening approval timelines, and lowering development costs—particularly for housing.
Key provisions
- Reaffirms that local governments may require submission and approval of a site plan before authorizing uses regulated by zoning ordinances and that approved site plans become part of the approval record.
- Requires site plans to be submitted with a completed site plan application form. (The introduced version explicitly required local units to develop and provide blank application forms listing all required studies and applicable technical standards; the adopted substitute modifies review language—see “Differences” below.)
- Limits a local unit’s ability to require additional studies or revisions to previously submitted studies after initial site plan approval. Additional or revised materials may only be required if:
- the applicant’s prior study or document was incomplete or failed to meet applicable technical standards, or
- the scope of the application materially changed, necessitating additional studies or documents.
- Confirms site-plan submission, review, and approval are required for special land uses and planned unit developments.
- States site plan decisions must be based on standards in the zoning ordinance and other applicable planning documents and laws; a site plan shall be approved if it contains required information and complies with applicable conditions and statutes.
Who would be affected
- Developers, property owners, architects, engineers and consultants who prepare site plan materials.
- Local planning departments, zoning boards, and municipal staff who review site plans.
- Indirectly, housing markets and renters if the bill reduces development cost/time (as supporters argue) or if review flexibility is constrained (as opponents argue).
Potential impact and fiscal notes
- Supporters: could reduce repeated study requests, streamline approvals, cut developer costs and timelines, and improve predictability for housing projects.
- Opponents: contend it may be impractical for municipalities to enumerate every potentially necessary study and could constrain necessary local review.
- No state fiscal impact projected. Local revenue impact is expected to be minimal; local site-plan review fees typically range $200–$600 and may decline if fewer resubmissions are required.
Positions (committee hearing)
- Support: homebuilders, planners, realtors, housing advocates (e.g., Home Builders Assn. of Michigan, Michigan Association of Planners, Abundant Housing Michigan).
- Opposition: several municipal associations and some municipalities (e.g., Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, City of Dexter).
Differences between introduced bill and substitute (H‑2)
- Introduced version explicitly required local units to develop and provide blank application forms that include a complete list of required studies and applicable technical standards, and then prohibited additional study requests except under the two listed conditions.
- The substitute relaxes the mandatory-form/list language and states that local units “may require studies or other documents reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposal” during review, while preserving the restriction on requiring additional studies after initial approval except when studies were incomplete or the project scope changed. (Some internal cross‑references to “blank application form” remain in the substitute text.)
Statutory reference: proposes amendments to section 501 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3501).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
