AGENDA #5c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition regarding Columbia Place Occupancy, and Response to Question regarding Sanitation, Zoning, Noise, and Parking Complaints at Duplexes
DATE: April 14, 2003
This report provides information in response to a petition received on February 24 from Ms. Julie Lentz requesting that the Council take steps to prevent overcrowding at Columbia Place.
Columbia Place is a community at the north end of North Columbia Street that has 33 duplex buildings, each containing two dwelling units. The petitioner indicated that since 1998, the number of units in Columbia Place that are owned by absentee landowners has grown from a handful to 20. As rental properties, the petitioner indicates that the units are creating overcrowding problems. A copy of the petition is attached.
The following provides a chronology of changes to occupancy-related Ordinance provisions in Chapel Hill:
· 1981: Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a new Development Ordinance.
· 1990: Chapel Hill Town Council sought to amend the Development Ordinance, to amend the definition of single-family dwellings, duplexes, and rooming houses. New language included the following regarding occupancy (new language in italics):
Dwelling, Single-Family: “A single family structure with more than five (5) bedrooms shall be classified as a Rooming House unless the structure is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.”
Dwelling, Two Family - - Duplex: “A duplex structure with more than three (3) bedrooms within either dwelling unit shall be classified as a Rooming House unless each dwelling unit is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.”
Rooming House: “A Rooming House shall also include a building or group of buildings intended for occupancy by or occupied by more than four persons who are not related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership.”
We believe the intent of these proposals was to discourage the construction of large houses and large duplexes, with atypically large numbers of bedrooms, which might be occupied by unrelated individuals (oftentimes each with a vehicle). Occupancy of a house with five or fewer bedrooms would not be regulated. Occupancy of a duplex with more than three bedrooms per side would not be regulated. Otherwise, the “Rooming House” designation would require that such arrangements occur only in certain zoning districts, and only with the approval of the Planning Board.
· For a period of more than 10 years, the Town’s Inspections and Planning Departments interpreted this configuration of rules to mean that occupancy in any dwelling unit should be limited to no more than four unrelated people.
· The interpretation came into question with inquiries brought to the attention of the Town Manager in 2002. Upon the advice of the Town Attorney, the Manager determined that the words, literally interpreted, meant that a building with multiple dwelling units could not have more than four unrelated people in the entire building. This seemed to be practically unworkable, but consistent with the actual words of the ordinance.
· The problems of the definitions was brought to the Council’s attention. In the interim, until the language could be adjusted, the Town Manager determined that the maximum occupancy of a duplex was four unrelated people in the entire building (comprised of two dwelling units).
· Presented with these and other facts, the Town Council on January 27, 2003 included adjusted definitions in the new Land Use Management Ordinance. Today’s regulations make it clear that four unrelated individuals may reside in a dwelling. A duplex is considered to have two dwellings; therefore, four unrelated individuals could reside in each of the two dwellings of a duplex.
We are not aware of occupancy violations at Columbia Place at present.
INCIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS
In response to the petition, a Council member asked for information regarding the number of sanitation, zoning, noise, and parking complaints that have been reported regarding duplex-type dwelling units.
A review of records provided by the Orange County Records Office and the Town’s Inspections Department indicates that there are approximately 600 duplexes (1200 individual units) in Chapel Hill.
The complaints listed below occurred between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002.
Sanitation
Carts Left at Curb 31 citations issued (the total number of complaints received is unknown. The citations were issued after warnings went unheeded)
Debris in Yard 1 complaint received
Law Enforcement
Noise/nuisance 23 complaints received
Inspections
Parking in Front Yard 2 complaints received
Abandoned Vehicles 2 complaints received
Occupancy Violation 1 complaint received
Code/Zoning Violations 5 complaints received
With the exception of the citations issued for sanitation carts left at the curb, no citations were issued for the other offenses listed above. Those complaints were resolved by other means, including warnings issued directly to violators, written warning notices to violators, property owners and landlords, and meetings with residents.
Regulations today allow four unrelated individuals to reside in a dwelling unit. Rental licensing was recently initiated to address many of the concerns associated with rental dwelling units. Rental licensing is in an early phase. Registration was required by January 1. We are currently collecting information about rental units.
We recommend no action at this time.
ATTACHMENT
1. Petition from Julie Lentz (p. 4).