12-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Holsten asked Teague about roomers and boarders. The ordinance would still allow roomers and boarders. Teague responded affirmatively. Thomsen pointed out it only allowed two roomers or boarders. The City Attorney’s interpretation of that was that roomers or boarders are typically considered to those who are paying room or board. Holsten stated that, assuming the people are paying rent, are they part of the four unrelated people or are they part of two roomers or boarders. Under the family definition, they could stay. Under roomers or boarders, that would be too many people. Baker stated in the example, there would be eight people in the house, which would be in violation. Holsten said, if one mother had two children and there were seven people living in the house, would that be complying? Baker said that would not comply with the ordinance. Holsten said the City Attorney could come in then and say there are too many people in the house. Zisla stated we could go on and on with this. There could be two sisters and their children and that would comply. We could get into a morass. Zisla said he would like the record to reflect that his decision would have nothing to do with the comment about the race of the battered women in the shelter. Zisla stated he certainly would not want that issue to come up in litigation that this Planning Commission or City Council did anything but on the record say it was an inappropriate comment and absolutely irrelevant. O’Brien concurred with Zisla’s remarks. Holsten said her issue was how do these two sides of things interact. How do the primary use and the accessory use interact? It is not clear. Baker stated, as he interprets the ordinance, there are two ways to qualify in the ordinance. The household is related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care living arrangements or four or more unrelated people living in the same household. The two cannot be combined; it is either one or the other. Holsten responded that Ms. Thomsen said they could be combined. Baker stated he believes it is either one or the other. Holsten said she would suggest that point be made more clear. The question of roomers and boarders living in a house should be more clear also. Holsten thanked the Commission for its time. Thomsen stated she wanted to make sure she understands. The intent would then be that, any number of persons, all of whom are related by blood or marriage would be permissible. But, in any situation where not all of the persons are related by blood or marriage, the maximum number allowed would be four. Baker stated that would be the case in a family unit. Baker stated there could be more than four when there are boarders, which could be two more. Thomsen answered affirmatively. Baker asked if the commissioners agreed with this interpretation. Schiferl stated his original thought had been for the wording to be and/or as relates to four persons; however, that wording may not be the tenor of the group. Baker responded that the wording should not be combined. Baker stated there should be a semi-colon inserted to separate the items. Schiferl drew the Commission’s attention to the Ms. Holsten’s letter on roomers and boarders. Is the stipulation of compensation in the present ordinance? Thomsen responded the current ordinance does not include the language, “whether for compensation or not for compensation.” The ordinance simply says that a permitted accessory use is the keeping of not more than a total of two boarders and/or roomers. Schiferl stated that Holsten’s language would begin to address some issues of unrelated people, but would get around the issue of narrowly defining a boarder as someone who lives there for compensation. A family and a couple of other unrelated folks would be part of the household. Baker stated he had no problem with the language presented by Thomsen. The addition of a semi-colon after household use would make it clearer. Thomsen proposed new language that would answer the Commission’s concerns. The addition of a semi-colon after the word “individual” and striking the word or and the next clause would be: “Two or more persons, all of whom are,” and inserting a semi-colon after “housekeeping unit.” The new language defining family would be: A. An individual. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\12-21-99.WPD 5