The Blaine City Council on March 2 took the first step toward banning detached accessory dwelling units, advancing an ordinance amendment that would remove them from city zoning code.
According to Community Development Director Sheila Sellman, the city approved a moratorium on accessory dwelling units, often called ADUs, in June 2025 while staff reviewed the regulations and intent behind them. The council discussed the issue at workshops June 16, 2025, and Jan. 5, 2026, when members directed staff to remove detached units from city code.
The proposed amendment would remove detached units from all zoning districts while keeping attached units. It would also reorganize performance standards, with one change to noise abatement rules.
Two public comments have so far been submitted opposing the change, citing housing demand and affordability, limits on homeowner options and concerns about the legality of the move.
The second reading is scheduled for March 16.
Joseph Gay and Matthew Lisles, attorneys with the Institute for Justice, wrote to the Blaine Planning Commission arguing the move would be both unwise and unconstitutional.
The attorneys represent Alex and Lynda Pepin, who are in a legal dispute with the city after their request for an ADU was denied twice by the council in 2025.
The attorneys wrote that detached ADUs offer broad benefits with few or no costs.
“Blaine carefully tailored the requirements for detached ADUs to match or be stricter than existing requirements for detached accessory buildings such as garages, which residents have regularly built in their yards for years,” the attorneys wrote.
They also wrote that the Pepins had been the only applicants for an ADU, arguing the existing rules were functioning as intended.
The letter also argued the proposed ban violated constitutional protections, stating that under equal protection and substantive due process principles, banning ADUs did not further any government zoning interest.
The attorneys also wrote that homeowners could still build the same structure for nonresidential purposes, and said the proposal appeared to be reacting to statements “expressing displeasure about the kind of people who might be able to live in less expensive homes.”
The letter also suggested allowing ADUs through an administrative permit rather than as a conditional use, with design requirements similar to those for garages or sheds.
The St. Paul Area Association of Realtors also wrote in opposition, saying ADUs could help reduce Minnesota’s estimated housing shortage of 100,000 units and that Blaine’s existing regulations were sufficient.
City Attorney Eric Larson wrote to the commission in response that the amendment falls within the city’s legislative authority because it involves adoption of a zoning ordinance, an area where courts generally grant substantial deference to municipalities.
Larson also wrote that zoning classifications that do not involve a fundamental right or protected class are reviewed under a rational basis standard. Under that standard, a municipality does not have to prove its policy is the best, most efficient or least restrictive option.
Larson also questioned the comparison between dwelling units and storage or garage structures. He wrote that the key issue is whether the ordinance is based on public welfare considerations, such as neighborhood compatibility and infrastructure capacity, which the council is entitled to evaluate.