Special Planning Committee Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Planning Committee met on October 27, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to address six agenda items related to student housing and enforcement matters. The committee took eight votes during the meeting and heard two public comments.

The committee approved two items: the Student Housing Task Force Report and Expanded Enforcement Recommendations. Four additional items were addressed with mixed outcomes—three items were deferred for future consideration (Comprehensive Review of Building Inspection, Improved Information Sharing Between Divisions, and Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House), while one item regarding Spacing or Density Limits on Student Homes was denied.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 27, 2009:

• Gorton
• Blues
• Gray
• Ellinger
• James
• Lawless
• Beard
• Feigel
• Stinnett
• McChord

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Motion 1: Abatement Funding for Code Enforcement 6:38 Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Feigl. The body approved adequate abatement funding for each budget cycle up to $200,000 for the Division of Code Enforcement. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. The approval established an enterprise fund to return abatement recovery funds to Code Enforcement, capped at $200,000 annually, with a five-year review period.

Motion 2: Amendment to Cap Enterprise Fund 16:27 Motion by Blues. The body amended the motion to establish an enterprise fund with a maximum cap of $200,000. The amendment passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James.

Motion 3: Five-Year Reevaluation Clause Amendment 17:37 Motion by James, seconded by Feigl. The body considered an amendment to include a five-year reevaluation clause for the enterprise fund. The amendment failed 4-5 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: James, Blues, Lawless, Feigl. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Stinnett, McChord.

Motion 4: Code Ordinance Review Recommendation 53:16 Motion by Blues, seconded by Feigl. The body recommended to the Council that ordinances be reviewed and revised to clarify codes and increase fines to discourage paying penalties as a cost of doing business. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. The approval established a subcommittee to study and recommend revisions to fines and code enforcement mechanisms.

Motion 5: Building Inspection Task Force Referral 1:16:01 Motion by Feigl, seconded by Blues. The body moved recommendation #5 regarding civil fines for building inspection violations to the Building Inspection Task Force. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. Recommendation #6 regarding fines for construction without permits was removed as it had already been passed.

Motion 6: Structural Violations Referral to Planning Committee 2:19:04 Motion by Lawless, seconded by Blues. The body referred the issue of daily fines for structural violations to the Planning Committee for review. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James.

Motion 7: Rejection of Student Housing Density Limits 2:48:40 Motion by James, seconded by Ellinger. The body rejected the recommendation for spacing or density limits on student homes in geographically defined areas. The motion passed 5-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: James, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray. The rejection included the home buyback program.

Motion 8: Amendment to Exclude Home Buyback Program 2:50:20 Motion by Blues, seconded by Lawless. The body considered an amendment to exclude paragraph 2 (home buyback program) from the rejection. The amendment failed 4-5 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Blues, Lawless, Feigl, James. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Stinnett, McChord.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included an appropriation of $200,000 in abatement funding for the Division of Code Enforcement. This funding was designated to support the division's code enforcement operations.

Public Comment

Two speakers addressed the meeting regarding fraternity and sorority housing issues.

Anthony Humphress 2:03:00 spoke about fraternity and sorority housing and partying. He suggested creating designated university streets for student parties as a way to reduce neighborhood disturbances and improve safety. Humphress noted that fraternities and sororities cannot formally designate party houses due to charter rules, which he presented as a constraint on current housing practices.

Tony Blanton 3:01:21 addressed the definition of fraternity and sorority houses. He explained that a fraternity is currently using a loophole in zoning laws by living in a single-family zone without being officially recognized as a fraternity house. Blanton emphasized the need for a legal definition of fraternity and sorority houses to enable proper enforcement of zoning regulations.

Appointments

During this meeting, an appointment was made to the Building Inspection Task Force. However, the specific individual appointed to this position was not identified in the meeting record.

Contested Items

Student Housing Density Limits

The council debated a proposal to limit student housing density, with disagreement centered on displacement, affordability, and legal enforceability. The motion to reject the proposal passed 5-3, indicating a divided council. Members who opposed rejection expressed strong support for the home buyback component of the proposal, suggesting the split reflected differing priorities regarding housing policy and student accommodation.

Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House

Council members engaged in heated discussion over whether to define fraternity and sorority houses in policy. The debate focused on three main concerns: whether such a definition would be enforceable, whether it could be considered discriminatory, and whether it posed legal risks. Members also raised concerns about whether the definition would unfairly target students and whether it could create loopholes that would undermine the intended policy goals.

Student Housing Task Force Report

The Student Housing Task Force presented its findings on student rental housing issues affecting Lexington 3:50. The presentation, delivered by David Jarvis, Dewey Crow, and Tony Blanton, examined historical context, enforcement challenges, and policy recommendations related to student housing.

Key Issues Identified

The task force identified several significant concerns within the student rental housing sector:

• Property maintenance problems affecting student-occupied rental properties
• Nuisance violations in neighborhoods with high concentrations of student housing
• Lack of a legal definition for fraternity and sorority houses, creating enforcement gaps

Enforcement Challenges

The presentation highlighted difficulties in addressing these issues through existing enforcement mechanisms, indicating that current policies and procedures were insufficient to manage the scope of problems identified.

Recommendations

The task force presented recommendations focused on two primary areas:

• Policy improvements to address gaps in current regulations
• Enhanced enforcement mechanisms to better address violations and maintain neighborhood standards

Outcome

The Student Housing Task Force Report was approved by the body.

Expanded Enforcement Recommendations

The committee discussed eight recommendations for enhanced code enforcement during this agenda item 3:50.

Key Speakers

David Jarvis and David Barbary led the discussion on the enforcement recommendations.

Recommendations Presented

The committee considered the following measures to strengthen code enforcement:

• Increasing abatement funding
• Lifting hiring freezes
• Conducting regular sweeps
• Increasing fines for violations
• Four additional recommendations (specific details not provided in available materials)

Outcome

The committee approved a motion to allocate up to $200,000 in abatement funding through an enterprise fund. The motion passed.

Comprehensive Review of Building Inspection

The committee discussed the need for a comprehensive review of building inspection practices during this agenda item 1:05:10. Dewey Crow led the discussion on this matter.

The review encompassed several key areas of building inspection operations, including civil fines, abatement procedures, and lien placement practices. These topics were identified as areas requiring systematic examination and potential improvement.

Rather than making an immediate decision, the committee deferred action on this item. The recommendation was referred to a newly formed Building Inspection Task Force, which would undertake the comprehensive review and provide recommendations for consideration at a future meeting.

Improved Information Sharing Between Divisions

The committee discussed the need for improved data integration between Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and other departments. 1:16:36

Key Participants

Dewey Crow and David Jarvis were the primary speakers on this agenda item.

Discussion

The committee identified a need for better information sharing across divisions to improve operational efficiency and coordination between departments. The discussion focused on the challenges of data integration between Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and other related departments.

Action Taken

A motion was made to hear a presentation from Computer Services regarding software development for cross-agency tracking systems. This presentation would address potential technical solutions to facilitate improved data sharing between the divisions.

Outcome

The agenda item was deferred, meaning the discussion and any decisions were postponed to a future meeting.

Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House

The committee discussed whether to include a definition of fraternity and sorority houses in the zoning ordinance 1:36:39.

Key Speakers

Tony Blanton and David Jarvis led the discussion on this agenda item.

Debate and Concerns

The committee debated the merits of formally defining fraternity and sorority houses within the zoning code. Several concerns emerged during the discussion:

• Enforceability: Questions were raised about how such a definition could be effectively enforced
• Discrimination: Concerns were expressed about potential discriminatory implications of singling out fraternity and sorority houses in the ordinance
• Identification challenges: The committee noted difficulties in identifying which houses would qualify as fraternity or sorority houses under any proposed definition

Outcome

The recommendation to define fraternity and sorority houses in the zoning ordinance was deferred. The committee determined that the matter required further study before a decision could be made.

Spacing or Density Limits on Student Homes

2:17:58

The committee discussed a proposal to implement spacing or density limits on student housing, modeled after policies used at Penn State University. The agenda item was presented for discussion and consideration by the committee.

Key Speakers and Positions

The discussion involved committee members Feigl, Blues, Lawless, and James, who engaged in debate over the merits and drawbacks of the proposed density restrictions.

Concerns Raised

The committee identified several significant concerns that ultimately led to rejection of the proposal:

• Displacement risks: Committee members worried that density limits could displace existing student residents from their current housing arrangements.
• Affordability impacts: There were concerns that restricting housing density would negatively affect housing affordability for students.
• Legal risks: The committee raised questions about potential legal challenges or liability associated with implementing such restrictions.

Outcome

The recommendation to establish spacing or density limits on student homes was denied. The concerns about displacement, affordability, and legal exposure outweighed support for the Penn State-inspired model during the committee's deliberation.