Housing
League members may also request an opinion directly from the League via email. Please include the subject heading and number when making such a request.
22. Legal comment by Attorneys Abby Busler and James Kalny, Davis Kuelthau, s.c., discusses Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and their perceived benefits and drawbacks, municipal authority to regulate ADUs, and specific things some Wisconsin municipalities have addressed in ADU regulations such as ownership requirements, zoning regulations, permitted locations, plan submission and conditional use permits, and also the interplay between ADUs and short-term rentals.
21. Federal law preempts the right-to-remedy provision of Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) when a public housing tenant is evicted for engaging in “drug-related criminal activity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l). Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Cobb, Appeal No. 2013AP002207 (2015). 3/31/15.
20. Concludes that it is the housing authority, rather than the city, who is responsible for enforcing restrictive covenants binding owners of land within a residential subdivision developed by the housing authority. The housing authority is not the city and is not a department, board or commission of the city. Rather, the housing authority is a completely separate "public body corporate and politic." Sec. 66.40(4)(a) and (9), Stats. 10/13/97.
22. Legal comment by Attorneys Abby Busler and James Kalny, Davis Kuelthau, s.c., discusses Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and their perceived benefits and drawbacks, municipal authority to regulate ADUs, and specific things some Wisconsin municipalities have addressed in ADU regulations such as ownership requirements, zoning regulations, permitted locations, plan submission and conditional use permits, and also the interplay between ADUs and short-term rentals.
21. Federal law preempts the right-to-remedy provision of Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) when a public housing tenant is evicted for engaging in “drug-related criminal activity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l). Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Cobb, Appeal No. 2013AP002207 (2015). 3/31/15.
20. Concludes that it is the housing authority, rather than the city, who is responsible for enforcing restrictive covenants binding owners of land within a residential subdivision developed by the housing authority. The housing authority is not the city and is not a department, board or commission of the city. Rather, the housing authority is a completely separate "public body corporate and politic." Sec. 66.40(4)(a) and (9), Stats. 10/13/97.