New student housing regulation could pass April 15
February 8, 2010 by News Staff · 27 Comments
The word family may soon have a new, clearer definition as soon as April 15 if the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council passes an amendment to regulations concerning residential buildings around UK. 
Craig Hardin, owner of Hardin Properties and a volunteer appointed to the Student Housing Task Force, sent an e-mail to the Kernel that included handouts from a Jan. 22 council work group session. The documents contained modifications to the definition of family, boarding and lodging houses and a timeline for passing them.
According to the documents, which apply to the R-1 or R-2 zones, the new regulations define a family as “any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship; (or) four or fewer unrelated persons; (or) two unrelated persons and any children related to each of them or under their care through a duly authorized custodial relationship; (or) not more than four persons who are residents of a home-like residence as defined in KRS 216B.450 (or who are) handicapped as defined in the Fair Housing Act; (or) a functional family as defined and regulated herein.”
The amendments add a definition for a functional family as “a group of five or more persons not otherwise meeting the definition of family who desire to live as a single housekeeping unit and who have received a conditional-use permit from the Board of Adjustment. Functional family does not include: residents of a boarding or lodging house; (or) fraternity, sorority or dormitory … (or) any group of individuals whose association is seasonal in nature.”
The documents list restrictions on the issuance of permits for a functional family including: “Members of the family are not legally dependent on others not part of the functional family,” “Members share a household budget,” and “Members prepare food and eat together regularly.”
Those wanting to live in houses who do not meet these specifications will need to find a residence classified as a boarding or lodging house, which is defined by the amendments as a residential building for adults living together not as a family. According to the documents, boarding houses house five or more individuals.
Third district councilwoman Diane Lawless, head of the Moratorium Work Group that drafted the changes, said the amendments are about population density, the misuse of zoning laws and community safety.
“It’s not about students at all,” Lawless said. “It’s a problem all over the city with different populations … If me and 17 of my friends were living (in one house), there would be the same issue.”
Lawless said a law against lodging and boarding houses in R-1 and R-2 zones is already in place, but the council hopes to clarify the definitions to protect students and other community members.
“A lot of landlords are trying to make as much money as possible and let the property go to hell in a hand basket, and they’re dangerous,” Lawless said.
Others in the community are worried about how the proposals would affect students, and how the council has handled the meetings where the documents were drafted.
“This is not transparent government,” Hardin said. “It never ceases to amaze me how far they will go to forward these agendas … It really excludes the students.”
Hardin said he was not made aware of any of the work-group meetings and was lucky to learn of the proposed amendments. He said he felt the amendments represented a minority of leaders trying to impose its will on a majority, and the leaders have not given students who would be affected due notice or avenues of communication.
Lawless, however, said it is not uncommon for council members to draft proposals and conduct research in small groups or individually. She said if the amendments are passed, the changes would have to pass the Planning Committee, the whole council, the Planning Commission and then the entire council a second time. Each meeting will be open to the public and posted on the council Web site in advance, she said.
Lawless said she expected the amendments to be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting on Feb. 16. She said the council wants to pass the amendments before the moratorium, which is against construction projects that add more than 25 percent of existing floor space to a house in the third district, expires on April 15.
Student Government President Ryan Smith received the documents, and said they came as a surprise.
“We’re the sole group being effected by this policy change, and we’re the group that is being reached out to the least,” Smith said. “I have not received one call or e-mail from Lawless (about these changes).”
Smith said his office has made consistent efforts to work with the Student Housing Task Force to resolve zoning and density issues, which is why the document was frustrating to him.
Lawless said she is disappointed the discussion has been characterized as a debate between the Lexington government and students, and said her office is concerned about the quality of life and safety of off-campus students.
“I’ve never heard someone from the third district say, ‘I don’t want students in my area,’ ” Lawless said. “But it is more likely that a house with 18 students in it will become a party house. It just makes sense.”
Get ready students you are about to get it!!! Again!!!
The University of Kentucky is the economic engine of Lex-Fayette County. The economic engine…The students are the customers of the economic engine…The Lexington Gov’t hates the customers of the economic engine. When you graduate from UK run don’t walk to the airport/interstate and get as far away from Lexington as possible. Actions speak louder than words. The LFUCG hates the students…watch them do it to you again.
Don’t the Wassmer’s own a lot of these homes that have had these ugly additions put on them. I wonder if this Bill Wassmer is related? …. Students should stop being played by landlords, students deserve high qualtiy, well maintained, safe, housing just like anyone else and city officials and neighbors who often have lived in these neighborhoods for decades shouldn’t be vilified as hateful just because they don’t want a house next to them converted to a rooming house with 18 people living in it. There’s a difference between 4 or 5 students living together in a house and a house double or tripled in size and 10 or more people living in a house. Not only shouldn’t students support this proposal they should demand that housing in the area around campus be regularly inspected and brought up to code so students aren’t subjected to living in fire traps. Demand action before someone dies.
Don’t believe the landlords when they claim to have the interests of the students at heart. They are just trying to make as much money off you as possible. As a couple of other people have said, it’s a population density problem rather than an attempt to prevent students from renting. For the same price that you would pay to rent a single room in one of those rooming houses and share a kitchen with 8 or 10 people, you could rent a nice house in the same neighborhood with two or three other students (in some cases only one!) complete with a backyard and off street parking. I have noticed a lot of For Rent and For Sale signs on these rooming houses lately. Maybe they are no longer as profitable as they once were now that students realize that for a similar price they also have the option of several nice apartment complexes close to campus with pools and other amenities.
Ms. Lawless is a sore loser.
Lawless has now resorted to behind-the-scenes deal making to keep pushing her minority view.
Lawless thinks she can avoid the public forum and political process.
Lawless thinks that her politically connected knitting circle should simply get their way despite the fact that the students represent 80-90% of the residents within 1 mile of UK.
This current level of student density built up for 30-40 years. Most homes were transformed to student appropriate housing decades ago.
The fact is that Lawless’ “old” cronies on the “Student Housing Task Force” (lead by Dr. Stevens who is over 70)…was soundly beaten and embarrassed…..just a few months ago.
The registered public speakers and participants were against the Lawless/Stevens “task force” plan 4 – 1. There were even large student protests in the streets outside of city hall.
The council wisely chose not to take the anti-student measure forward. They did not want to face the political backlash. But now Lawless is back. What Sore loser.
The fact is this legislation is written to keep “STUDENTS” to no more than 4 to a house. Lawless must think students are stupid if she is going to suggest that her legislation is not targeting them.
To suggest the legislation is simply trying to keep 17 students out of a house is a lie. The proposed limit is 4. Not 17. Four.
Now the sore losers are back. Lawless and Stevens need to find something else to do….maybe play Bingo or something more hamless…
Todd:
I hope you’re not suggesting to the young people who read this paper that a person’s ideas are somehow suspect merely by virtue of their age?
Let me remind you that these are college students, not idiots.
After all, they routinely study the ideas of people so old that many have been dead for centuries.
In other words, prejudice against people of advanced age—in addition to being beneath contempt—is an approach that will not resonate, at least not with the brightest of these students.
Dr. Stevens introduced—as a concept for discussion—an approach used by other college towns to help manage the wide range of problems that routinely occur in situations where common sense has historically taken a back seat to the interests of an unregulated business enterprise.
Like you, I was not a supporter of the Penn State Plan. I was (and continue to be) however convinced that the underlying intent of that plan (preserving, and in some cases increasing stability in these neighborhoods by way of owner-occupancy) was an important idea.
Unfortunately, the bat-shit-crazy in our midst went rabid at the suggestion, and defeated the issue before it could even be discussed.
Call that an embarrassing defeat for Dr. Stevens if it makes you feel better to characterize it that way, but in fact it was an embarrassing defeat for grown-up discussion.
Thank you Ms. Lawless for supporting the silent majority. It is not appropriate to the University, the students, or the residents of Lexington to allow the homes near the University to be filled to the max and to come under such disrepair. The proposed regulations would be a step in the right direction for cleaning up Lexington. If there is any way that we, the silent majority, can help you in getting this law passed please let us know.
The long term residents who inhabit these neighborhoods have every right to enjoy
themselves without the hassle of students rioting. However the well behaved students
also have a right to go to school, live where they want and also enjoy themselves. It is
the small group of people that make it hard for all the others.
Most landlords are simply investors that own a house and rent to students. There may
be differences of opinion about what needs to be done to a house, and what can be
done with the amount of money that one has. Some students are rough on a house
and some landlords do not appreciate the needs of a house.
There are solutions, but we need to have open discussion, not in “back rooms”. We
need enforcement in all areas of town and reasonable solutions.
John
It sounds like the Student Government needs to consult with a local Landlord/Tenant Law attorney. Obviously, this is not the first “college” town to face this topic; a resolution should be easy.
After 15 years of watching UK area landlords violate zonning laws ,all the while building inspection runs the gauntlet on there behalf ,there are several things apparent. Renting property in the uk area is a big money buisness. The more people you cram into a house the more money you make. Some of these landlords are so rich they live in private communities were students would never be allowed. Funny aint it. They are quick to join committees to protect there cash cows.(what is their economic engines) The failure of UK to build doorms has made many of them very wealthy at student and resident expense. I meet very fine students every year and see them pay exuberant rents to live in virtual slumbs. The most important thing of all is to investigate those who have illegaly duplexed,developed,graveled and ignored the laws for personal gain. Just because the city has ignored them for so long is in no way an excuse to continue. Most of you will no just how much these landlords care about students when it becomes time for you to ask for your deposits back.
The Lawless proposal is for “new zoning”. A changing of the rules. There is no issue by most landlords of enforcing existing laws. It is the change of the laws to force abandonment of existing property use that is the problem. Economic destruction will result from UK area property that can not be rented to students.
Once the city grants a permit to build an addition or to renovate a property, then investment takes place. There was never an expectation that the city would change it’s mind and target the students.
The reason that students choose to rent the homes is the cost is cheaper than the standard apartment options. To suggest that the students ar being ripped off is not true. They rent these houses because they are cheap places to live. Removing this option will drive their cost up.
In regards to other areas of the country. The Penn State plan was not common. You must ask yourself…why go all the way to Penn State? Most college towns have house zoning very similar to Lexington. The issue is this minority group wants to put in place a zoning concept that is econically punishing to the students and landlords to reverse 30-40 years of student housing development.
Lawless simply does not appreciate economic contributions.
Steve,
If Landlords have no problem with enforcement of existing laws then why do the fight against annual inspections of their rental properties in order to ensure compliance. The student task force and other residents of the neighborhood have documented over and over that indeed there is wide spread lack of compliance with basic safety codes. I believe you, and TMr. Sills and Mr. Wassmer are all landlords. Since you all say your good landlords, I’d assume you all will be the first to volunteer your homes for annual inspections, right ???? I anxiously await your answer, I would be happy to be proven wrong.
“We’re the sole group being effected by this policy change…”
To think that the STUDENTS in the area will be the only group of individuals effected by this policy change is utter nonsense and reflects a narrow minded opinion… The fact is that EVERYONE will be effected by this policy change and I can only see positive benefits for students and…heaven forbid…the HOMEOWNERS in the area.
Signed,
A student who will be “effected” by the policy change
It is unfortunate that students feel the target of this attempt to improve housing conditions for all. Those who rent and those who own. For years the ambiguous definition of “family” has been exploited by landlords who have turned attractive old neighbourhoods into overcrowded run down transient dumps. Sorry to be candid.
The efforts of Council Member Lawless (who was voted to represent the 3rd District with an OVERWHELMING majority) have been tireless. She is running again and this time is unopposed!
Many of the posters on this site who have objected to any reforms are landlords and do not reside in this district, merely enjoy the plunder they have taken by extracting exhorbitant rents from a group who have housing needs.
The redefining of the word “family” to make it more specific and tangible will impact the entire City of Lexington. So students should not feel victims. In fact this will also help the silent under-represented Hispanic group in this town who live in squalid, unsafe unchecked conditions in the Versailles Road area. They too are being ripped off.
Think about it.
Rent will go up for my tenants. I’ll pass along the cost of permits, administration costs for permits etc… If everybody has to comply students can’t shop cheaper elsewhere. I’ll never let an inspector in my houses to look for inevitable petty violations to justify their presence because I enjoy my constitutional rights. If a tenant lets them in, their rent will go up if there are fines. If a tenant wants to risk having a judge throw them out of their house on 3 days notice during finals week because they had locks on their doors, by all means. I keep properties up to code because if something went wrong I’d be sued and have money invested. Also, name a house with 17 people. 8 is typically the most you’ll see.
let’s connect the dots here people and have our city start taking some responsibility in this matter.
1. landlord identifies home in campus area as business opportunity for campus rental
2. landlord submits plans to the CITY GOVERNMENT FOR APPROVAL to add additional square footage PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE HOME
3. the CITY APPROVES the plans for expansion and APPROVES CONSTRUCTION and ISSUES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY prior to students moving in the residence
4. fast forward several years or a few months – CITY ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE ORDINANCE AND LANDLORD (and students) REFERENCED LEFT HOLDING THE BAG
Surprised? Not in this town. What’s to expect when you have liberal, high school educated at best council members steering the barge?
Of all the things that young people should be concerned about relating to this effort, the least of them should be the bogus charge that any of this is being undertaken for the purpose of somehow disenfranchising them, or discriminating against them, or for GOD’S sake because anybody hates them.
That’s just so stupid.
As Mark says, students have every right to expect that the places they rent are reasonably safe—an expectation they currently have no basis upon which to rely.
But they are not the only tenants in town entitled to a modest level of safety and stability in their residential accommodations. Kate is correct when she points to how the slop in our current laws adversely impacts the lives of populations outside the Two Keys area—and young people are right to reject arguments that claim this issue is only about UK students.
In addition, neighborhood residents have legitimate concerns—not the least of which include their reasonable expectation that their homes and neighborhoods will not be ruined by the crass desires of unregulated businesses to do as they please in the pursuit of maximum profit per square foot.
And despite what Steve claims above, zoning laws do in fact change in response to conditions that evolve over time, and it goes without saying that no business has a right to reap the benefits of unexamined business practices—much less in perpetuity.
Landlords are against this effort to bring order to the Wild West, and who can blame them? I mean, damn—they make money hand-over-fist, are subjected to zero oversight, have successfully expanded their commercial interests into our neighborhoods (protected by the fig-leaf contention that these are simple residential uses), and have even succeeded in the past in convincing UK students that their interests are aligned.
It remains to be seen how successful their efforts will be this time, but as I’ve said in the past, the results of this approach to date speak for themselves.
Stop the drama. Lexington is a campus town. If the city makes this change get ready for a great big real estate recession. As one persone said, 95% of these houses/neighborhoods are inhabited by students and have been for decades. These students are smart and if they don’t like a house because it is in bad shape, they don’t live there. Lawless has an agenda not a proposal to develop a win win situation. Enforce the laws that are in place today and quit letting the additions happen and the problem is solved. I guess the students are old enough to vote and old enough to go to war for our country but will be prohibited from living with a group of over four friends while going to college. I have to believe there is a smarter/better way to fix this issue. I have to believe brains will prevail over the drama and hidden agendas.
Poor Dennis. you sound like such a victim. perhaps Russia would be a better place for you. The cost of living in a house by campus is more cost effective and provides a better environment for me versus these expensive, small apartments.
This is all about us – the students. Just admit it.
I luv it Antwan. Perfectly said. There are two sides to the coin. The city can’t and shouldn’t approve of these additions and then change the rules that effect so many people. Stop approving and the problem is solved. If people are building houses illegally, shut them down. If they are following the rules, shame on all of you for slamming them. We live in America don’t we??????
Antwan and Barb,
I believe that many of these additions are approved with rooms designated as “computer room,” “exercise room,” etc. on the plans, but when they are actually rented out, the landlords convert them into bedrooms (their plan all along). Since no inspections are made of these rental homes, it is hard to prove that the house is actually operating as a boarding house.
L2,
I believe you are correct about many landlords mis-representing their additions. Supposedly, building inspection only will approve 5 bedrooms, but after these additions are made the landlords rent them out as 9-10 bedrooms homes, often with locked bedrooms, defacto making them rooming homes, which is blatantly against the law in most residential areas. However, since we have no rental inspection system in Lexington, these problems go unenforeced. Without such a system the only way the city can inspect these houses is if the landlord voluntarily lets them or they get a search warrant…. I see none of the the landlords complaining on this blog has taken me up on my request for them to volunteerly agree to annual inspections. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not.
Students should beware of any landlord who won’t allow inspectors in and threatens to raise their rent if they allow safety inspections. Anybody who looks around should be able to find safe accommodations at a reasonable cost. Many of these landlords are already charging rates at least as high as you would pay in a nice, modern, conveniently located apartment complex with much better facilities.
Seeing Mr. Wassmer, Mr. Hardin and Mr. Sills froth at the mouth about this issue is very telling. They are all campus area landlords with significant financial interest in keeping zoning law enforcement and building inspection as dysfunctional as they currently stand. They have literally ZERO interest in the quality of life for residents of those neighborhoods, students included. YOUR rent money and YOUR deposit are the SOLE reasons that Mr. Hardin is trying once again to rally the University Student body with cries of discrimination, etc. Students- Mr. Hardin is counting on you to make more money for him….nothing else. Hopefully students will turn out en masse and speak up for themselves in support of efforts that the City council and the University are making to IMPROVE the quality of off campus housing.
The main reason I protest all of the cracker box style houses near campus is that the landlords not only try to put too many people in them but they never step forward to request a safety inspection when building their silos. That’s irresponsible. I know students need places to live – that’s a given – but I’ve also seen situations where some landlords don’t even worry about a house being torn up with an over run of people because they think – oh I make enough money off of them so I can fix it back up. Believe me I have experienced that from visiting a couple of houses. There’s an original little two bedroom bungalow near campus that one of the wealthiest businessmen in Lexington has had remodeled (no additions though) and he put in another tiny bathroom with laundry facilities and used part of the living room and a hallway to turn it into a four bedroom house. It’s like walking around in a walk in closet. The driveway will easily hold three vehicles but the students don’t like to shift theirs around so most of the time only two park in the driveway and the other two on the narrow street. I fear for the students’ safety if there was a fire or any kind of a danger. The landlord gets around $900 a month for this house. They pay their own bills. After about five years he has made his purchase price back. He lives in one of the most affluent neighborhoods here.
This is only one example of some of the landlords who don’t need to answer to anyone. I am glad the city is trying to do something about the abuse of the safety laws in and around campus and also trying to protect the students.
-Paula
I should have added to my comments previously that the house I spoke of as being a now four bedroom house has caused the neighbors a few problems – in the past fortunately. When five guys lived there they had a party every weekend. Sometimes people coming to their party would cut across neighbors’ yards to get to their destination and the neighbors have found their own garbage cans full of beer cans, bottles, etc. after the parties were over. Also, as the street is narrow with parking allowed on both sides some people would park either too near the edge of others’ driveways and a couple of times across them.
It would be good if the historic society would be allowed to make it impossible to renovate the family style homes into something they aren’t meant to be because of no laws against it – as much as they have pushed for no changes in the appearances of the houses in those historic districts.
I would like Ms. Lawless to point out a house that has 17 students living in it. I am sure that is a completely made-up, exaggerated number used to push her agenda forward. The most I’ve seen living in a house is 7/8. Always be weary when someone claims to be doing something “for your own good” or to protect you- that tends to be a smokescreen for them to strip your rights away.
Keep coming up with ways to try to screw students over. It’s brilliant. Lexington is a college town, no matter how hard you try to make it into Louisville, this is a campus town, not a big city. Run off the students and this place will shut down.
First the campus was made dry, then the smoking ban, now students are going to be forced to live farther and farther from campus. The word is spreading that students get a raw deal here and it’s going to hit Lexington where it hurts- the pocketbooks. I am anxious to see how this place is in twenty years- keep screwing students over and they’re going to stop coming here. Ever wonder why UK’s retention rates are so low? The university spends countless dollars researching this, when the answer is clear and obvious. College students aren’t dumb. They’re not going to stay where they are clearly not wanted (other than for their money).
I actually live in the neighborhoods that have a high student density. AS SOON AS AN ADDITION WAS PUT ON A SMALL FAMILY DWELLING AND TURNED IT INTO A NINE BEDROOM HOUSE IT BECAME THE PARTY HOUSE that THE DEVELOPER ASSURED US IT WOULDN’T. We has to call the police several times in a two week period because of RUSH week. Our street was trashed and packed with cars. There is no place on their property to park all the vehicles that were required by the residents so the street, which was not designed for such high density parking, is impossible to get through unless it is one car at a time. I have to back-up or pull over every other time I come home just to get to my drive-way. Student have rights but so does everyone else that lives here on a permanent basis so how about not “screwing over” the tax-paying home owners that like to take care of their stuff. For most of the student, this neighborhood is just a “pit-stop” on the weekday and they go “home” during the holidays. They DO NOT HAVE ANY REAL VESTED INTEREST IN KEEPING UP THE VALUES OF THE HOMES OR PROPERTIES. Of course there are good neighbors among the students, and they tend to be in the home that have maintained their original intended occupancy. If the developers think that this is so unfair and that these problems don’t exist then move you “butts” into the neighborhoods that you own properties on and “walk the walk”. I suspect you’ll be out in six months.