HomeMy WebLinkAbout6C - Housing Occupancy Regulations~~~~~ I~~usin Occu anc
g p y
R~ ulations
~
Agenda Item VI-C
CITI'OF BOULDER
HUMAN RELATIOl~'S COMl~ZISSION
AGENDA ITEM
M~ETING DATE: October 18, 2004
AG~NDA T1TLE: Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Counci]
on an ordinance amending occupancy regulations by modifying the definition of "fami]y"
and providing for Registered Domestic Partners.
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Yegian, Project Manager
Executive Summary:
Staff requests that the Human Relations Commission make a recommendation to City Council on
the code changes proposed in tlie attached draft ordinance. The changes proposed v,~ill:
A. Modify the existing definition of "family" to:
~ Define "family" by listing the relationships ratlier than refen-ing to degrees of
consanguinity. ~
• Include extended family members as follows: husbands and wives, parents and children,
grandparents and ~randchildren, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and nephews and
nieces, ~reat ~randparents and great ~randchildren, great ~reat ~randparents and great great
grandchildren, grandnephews and ~randnieces, great uncles and great aunts, and ~rst cousins
and their children. V
B. Extend occupancy rights to registered domestic partners by including them in the term
"heads of household."
C. Enact the City's Domestic Partnership Registry as part of Title 12, Human Ri~hts
At its April 8, 2004, meeting Council tabled a proposed ordinance to amend the occupancy
T-equirements and reguJations related to the definition of "consangu~nity." While there appeared
to be consensus that the occupancy regulations should be "marriage neutral," there were
concerns that the reconunended solution was overly complex and maintained a discriminat~ry
distinction between married and unmarried couples. Staff has developed a revised ordinance
There were some general~comments about not enforcing occupancy at all, but increasing
enforcement of ne~ative nei~hborhood impacts such as noise, trash and parking.
Anah~sis•
A. Defi.ni~ig ` fam.il.~=" b~~ listing rel.a.tioiisliips a~zd ~~enioving degree of consaiigui~ii~j~
T9aking ihis change ~~~ill cJarify the Boulder Revised Code and simplify its understanding.
Modifi%i».g llie defi»i~i.o~i of ` faniily" to be mof~e inclusive of exteiided family nie~aibers
While the City's current definition of family is based on the concept of a nuclear fami]y, in other
cultures close fami]y relationships often extend fw-ther. In addition, the care of senior relatives is
deemed to be an important family obligation by many in our community and has become an
economic necessity for others. The City's I-3uman Relations Commission requested this change
because the current definition restricts family members to the second degree of consanguinity
and does not address these concerns.
At its Apri] 8, 2004 meeting Council did not direct staff to make any changes to this element of
the proposed ordinance. ~~1~hile there is some Jimited public concern about increased occupancy
based on extending the definition of "family," the majority of people commenting would rather
allow for the expanded definition and focus on enforcement of nuisance issues such as noise and
trash.
B. Ea~e~zding occupancy rights to a"~~egistered dom.estic partnersll.ip" by including it i~i the
lerm "heads of household. "
The ]ocal chapter of the American Civi] ]iberties Union recommended that the city consider'
revising the occupancy requirements of the code making it "marria~e neutral" and thereby,
reco~nizing other forms of domestic relationships. After a public process and Planning Board
recommendation February 26, 2004, a proposed o~`dinance was presented to Council (see
Attachment B). The recommended solution was to retain the current t~~~o roomer allowance and
establish either a"two heads of household" or "domestic partnership" status that for occupancy
pu~poses would be treated the same as if the parties were married. Staff recommended the
creation of an "affirmative defense" should an enforcement situation arise as to whether two
people are a"domestic partnership. Providing specific forms of evidence would be considered
as adequate proof of the existence of a domestic partnership. At its April 8, 2004, meeting
Counci] tabled the proposed ordinance. While there appeared to be consensus that the
occupancy regulations should be "marria~e neutral," there were concerns that the recommended
solution was overly complex and rimaintained a discriminatory distinction between married and
unmarried couples.
Based on Council's direction and public comment, staff has developed a new proposed
ordinance. (See Attachment A) By inc]uding registered domestic partners in the definition of
heads of household, the City would extend them the same occupancy status granfed married
additiona] support from~ the public for this step as it makes more forma] the City's support of
same-sex relationships.
The ordinance establishes the existing Domestic Partnership ReQistry, currently a program of the
City Manager's Office, as part of the Boulder Revised Code without si~nificant changes to the
definition of a"domestic partnel•ship" or the process of registerin~. It continues the option of
registering a domestic partnership privately and adds a new provision that requires a 90-day
period bet~~~een terminating one domestic partnership and registering another. Based on
substantial public comment, staff identified, but is not recommending, an alternative for your
consideration. As proposed, the ordinance would extend occupancy ri~hts to registered domestic
partners who choose not to be entered into a public database. This choice was made in order to
accommodate concerns that in many nearby jurisdictions discrimination against those in same-
sex relationships is not prohibited. Requiring public re~istration of a domestic partnership would
result in people havin~ to choose between risking public knowledge of their relationship and
gaining occupancy rights. (Note that the database of registered domestic partners is a public
record and has been requested approximately ~ve times since the Re~istry was created.) The
majority of public comment supported this choice. The alternative would be to require public
re~istration of a domestic partnership in order to receive occupancy ri~hts. Several people
thought this would decrease the likelihood that people ~~~il] abuse the Registry for occupancy
purposes due to potentia] public knowled~e of their domestic partnership.
Code Clarifications: One item is adding a definition of "owner occupied." This term was
originally created as part of the City's accessory dwelling unit ordinance. A property is required
to be occupied by an owner occupant in order to be eli~ible for an ADU. Subsequently, the City
has adopted regulations for "owner's accessory units," which also requires owner occupancy as a
condition of this use. Rather than, defining this term ~~~ithin each of the conditional use
standards, staff proposes to create definition, and only use the term in each of the sections. This
is not a substantive chan~e, but rather, one intended to simplify the code.
The second item is the addition of the phrase, "guardianship, including foster children,"
throughout the ordinance ~~~hen makin~ references to the members of fami]ies. This change
clari~es that such family relationships are also included within the City's de~nition of family.
St.aff Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendin~ occupancy re~ulations by modifying the
definition of "family" and providin~ for Registered Domestic Partners.
ATTA CHT~ENT A: Draft Ordinance
ATTACHMEi~'T B: Apri18, 2004 Council Memo
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DEFIlVITION
OF A FAMILY BY AMENDING TITLE 12,
"HLTMAN RIGHTS" WITH THE ADDITION OF A
NEW CHAPTER RELATED TO THE CREATION
OF A DOMESTIC REGISTRY AND AMENDING
THE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO A FAMILY
THROUGHOUT THE BOULDER REVISED CODE,
CLARIFICATIONS RELATED TO OWNER
OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. The following definitions in Sections 1-2-1, and 9-1-3, B.R.C., 1981, are added,
replaced, or amended to read:
"Familv" means the heads of household nlus the followin~ nersons who are related to the
heads of the household: narents and children. ~randnarents and ~randchildren, brothers and
sisters. aunts and uncles. nenhews and nieces. first cousins, the children of first cousins,
~reat ~randchildren, great ~randnarents. areat ~reat arand children, ~reat ~reat ~randparents,
~randnieces, ~randne~hews. ~reat aunts. and Qreat uncles. These relationshins mav be of the
whole or half blood, bv ado~tion, auardianshin, includin~ foster children. or throu~h a
marria~e or a domestic nartnershi~ meetin~ the requirements of Chanter 12-4. "Domestic
Partners." B.R.C. 1981, to a nerson with such a relationshin with the heads of household.
« „
> > >
> > •
> >
"Heads of the household" means one nerson or un to two nersons who are married or are
domestic nartners meetin~ the reauirements of Chanter 12-4, "Domestic Partners:' B.R.C.
1981.
Section 2. The following definition in Sections 1-2-1, 9-1-3, and 10-1-1, B.R.C., 1981, is
amended to read:
K:~PLCiJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.eh£doc Draft: October 9, 2~~4
"Rooming house" means an establishment where, for direct or indirect compensation,
lodging, with or without kitchen facilities or meals, is offered for one month or more for
three or more roomers not related to the familv of the heads of the household-~~
„a,.r+;,.,, ,,,.,,.,.a ,.. ~„ +,,~ ~ „a ao,.,-~~ „~,.,,,,~.,,,,,,,;,.,;,~,
~ ,'
Section 3. The following definitions in Sections 1-2-1, and 11-1-2, B.R.C., 1981, are
amended to read:
"Multi-unit dwelling" means a building used by two or more of the following groups of
persons living independently of each other in separate dwelling units but not including
motels, hotels, and resorts:
(1) The members of a family r°~~~ ~e ~~~~Te~~~e~o,a '~°, m ~~
, ' , plus one or two
roomers. rr^•,;~°~ *'~~++'~° The quarters the roomers use ~e-shall not exceed one-
third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit and ~e-shall not be a separate
dwelling unit;
(2) Up to three individuals in RR, RRl, ER, and LR zones;
(3) Up to eight persons sixty years of age or older in RR, RRl, ER, and LR zones;
(4) Up to four individuals in MR, MXR, MLT, HZ, HR, TB, CB, RB l, RB2, RB3, IS, IG,
IM, IMS, BMS, RMS, and RB zones; or
(5) Two individuals and any of their children by blood, marriage, ,~uardianshin.
includin~ foster children. or adoption.
"Single-unit dwelling" means a detached principal building other than a mobile home,
designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by one group of the following persons as an
independent living unit:
(1) The members of a family r°'^+oa +,. +,,~ ~,o.,,~ „~+~,o ~,,,,,~o~.,,ia ~,<, ,.,,.,,...;.,no
~
.,a„r+;,,,,~ ,,,. ~.,,;,,a~ , r ~„ +,,,~ ~ „a ao~,.,~~ ,.~,.,,,,~.,,,~,,;,,;+~,~ plus one or
two roomers_~s=~i~ T~he quarters the roomers use ~e-shall not
exceed one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit and shall ~e
not be a separate dwelling unit;
(2) Up to three individuals in RR, RRl, ER, and LR zones;
(3) Up to eight persons sixty years of age or older in RR, RRl, RMS, ER, and
LR zones;
K:~PLCiJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.eh£doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
2
(4) Up to four individuals in MR, MXR, MLJ, HZ, HR, TB, CB, RB 1, RB2,
RB3, IS, IG, IM, IMS, BMS, RMS, and RB zones; or
(5) Two individuals and any of their children by blood, marriage,
Quardianshin. includin~ foster children. or adoption.
to read:
Section 4. The following portion of the definition in Section 3-1-1, B.R.C., 1981, is amended
"Food service establishment" means any place that is kept or mainta.ined for the purpose of
preparing or serving food, but does not include:
(1) Homes containing a family, , , ' ,
' , and its nonpaying guests;
Section 5. The following definition in Section 9-1-3, B.R.C, 1981, is added to read:
"Owner occunied" means a dwellin~ unit that is actuallv and nhvsicallv occunied as a
princinal residence bv at least one owner of record of the lot or ~arcel u~on which the
dwellin~ unit is located. who nossesses at least an estate for life or a fiftv nercent fee simnle
ownershin interest. or is the trustor of a revocable livin~ trust.
Section 3. Chapter 4-20, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a new Section 4-20-58,
B.R.C. 1981, to read:
I 4-20-58 Domestic Partnership Registration Fees.
An applicant for the registration or termination of a domestic partnership shall pay an application or
termination fee of $25.00.
Section 5. Subsection 9-3.2-8(a), B.R.C., 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.2-80ccupancy of Units.
(a) General Occupancy Restrictions: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10-2, "Housing
Code," B.R.C. 1981, no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit:
K:~PLCiJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.ehf.doc Draft: October 9, 2~~4
3
(1) Members of a family ~*~~' *^~~~~a~+~~e~~~e~~-~3~~i~ , ^~'^~^+;^^, ^
, , plus one or two-roomers.~-e~
;~~The quarters that the roomers use ~e-shall not exceed one-third of the total
floor area of the dwelling unit ~^a a^ ^^* ^^^~~r~~ or shall not be a separate dwelling
unit;
(2) Up to three persons in P-E, AE, RR, RRl, ER, and LR zones;
(3) Up to four persons in MU, NIR, MXR, HR, RMS, HZ, TB, CB, BMS, RB, RB 1,
RB2, RB3, IG, IlvI, IS, and IMS zones; or
(4) Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, ~uardianshin, includin~
foster children. or adoption.
Section 6. Paragraph 9-3.4-12(a)(1), B.R.C., 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.4-12 Accessory Dwelling Units.
(a) Standards: An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with an existing single-family dwelling
unit may establish and maintain an accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure of a
detached dwelling unit in the -LR-D, LR-E, ER-E, RR-E, RRl-E, A-E, or P-E districts if all
of the following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of the accessory
dwelling unit:
(1) Owner Occupied: The detached dwelling unit within which the accessory dwelling
unit is located, or the accessory dwelling unit itself, is owner occunied ^^'~~^-~, '~
,a~;,..,ii~, ,,,.,.,,r;o,a ~ r.,i ,. ~;,a~r,.o ~..,.,+,o.,~~,.,,o „ „~„o,.,,,.a ,.~~,,o,,.,.
~
~ •
Section 7. Paragraph 9-3.4-13(a)(1), B.R.C., 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.4-13 Owner's Accessory Unit.
(a) Standards: An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with an existing single-family dwelling
unit may establish and maintain an owner's accessory unit within the principal structure of
the detached dwelling unit, or within an accessory structure meeting the size restrictions
described below, on a lot or parcel in the MXR-E, ER, RR and RRl districts if all of the
K:~PLCiJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.ehf.doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
4
following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of the owner's accessory
unit:
(1) The detached dwelling unit or the owner's accessory unit itself is owner occunied.
,
~
,
~ •
Section 9. Subsection 10-2-14(a), B.R.C., 1981, is amended to read:
10-2-14 Minimum Space, Use, and Location Requirements.
(a) Every dwelling unit shall contain at least 150 square feet of floor space for the first occupant
thereof and at least 100 additional square feet of floor space for every additional occupant
thereof. The floor space shall be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area plus
non-habitable room area up to a maximum of ten percent of the total required floor space.
But this floor space requirement does not apply when the residents of a dwelling unit are
members of a family_ , ' ,
ao ,.~,, r;,~,
~_a-~~ -- ----~a~~--'~'
Section 10. The following definition in Section 10-2.5-2, B.R.C., 1981, is amendedto read:
"Relative" means an individual related as a member of a familv
^^^a a°~^-°° as defined in Section 1-2-1, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.
Section 11. Paragraph 10-3-2(b)(1), B.R.C., 1981, is amended to read:
10-3-2 Rental License Required Prior to Occupancy and License Egemptions
(b) Buildings, or building areas, described in one or more of the following paragraphs axe
exempted from the requirement to obtain a rental license from the city manager.
(1) Any dwelling unit occupied by the owner, or members of the owner's family~
.~......~.....ri,,, .....,t,..~.,..., .,_ ...~.,_., .... .~.....~ .,_....,~. »t.. ~., ,..~., ..,,.,.,.~... ....,b_..., .,a ...,....,...._b..W_..~ e
and housing no more than two roomers who are unrelated to the owner or the owner's
family.
K:~PLCLJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.ehf.doc Draft: October 9, 2~04
Section 13. Title 12, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 12-4, to read:
Title 12 HUMAN RIGHTS
Chapter 4- Domestic Registry - Creation and
Termination of Domestic Partnerships.
~ 12-4-1 Domestic Partnership Registry - Purpose.
The city values the dignity and worth of all people and is committed to promoting justice,
equity and inclusiveness. The city finds that domestic partnerships today exist in many
different forms, including uninarried couples who are living together. In order to promote
equal respect and fair treatment and to protect the public health safety and welfare, it is the
policy of the city to allow persons in committed relationships who meet the domestic
partnership criteria to register with the city and to obtain a certificate attesting to their status.
I 12-4-2 Definitions:
The following terms used in this chapter have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
"Common household" means a place where both domestic partners reside. The legal right to
occupy the common household need not be joint.
"Marriage," as used in this chapter, shall mean a marriage as defined in section 14-2-104
C.R.S.
~ 12-4-3 Requirements for pomestic Partnerships.
I(a) To be a person's domestic partner, an individual must:
(1) Be an unmarried person eighteen years of age or older and competent to contract;
(2) Not have been prohibited from marrying his or her domestic partner under the law of
this state by reason of a blood relationship to the domestic partner or by reason of
adoption;
(3) Share a common household, as defined herein, with the domestic partner;
(4) Not have a different domestic partner under the provisions of this chapter or any
other comparable domestic partnership provision;
(5) Execute, with his or her domestic partner, a certificate of domestic partnership,
attesting to the foregoing requirements and that the parties are in a relationship of
K:~PLCLJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.eh£doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
6
mutual support, caring, and commitment with the present intention to remain in that
relationship; and
(6) Not have terminated the domestic partnership.
12-4-4 Creation and Termination of Domestic Partnerships.
(a) Creation: A domestic partnership is established when both parties execute a certificate of
domestic partnership, attesting to the foregoing facts of Section 12-4-3, "Requirements for
Domestic Partnerships," B.R.C. 1981, before the city manager.
(b) Termination: A domestic partnership ends when either of the domestic partners dies,
marries, or executes a certificate of termination, stating that one or more of the criteria listed
in paragraph (a) of this section no longer apply, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The domestic partnership shall terminate as of the date of the death or marriage of
either partner, or as of the date of executing the certificate of termination; and,
(2) In the event that only one of the partners executes the certificate of termination, then
that partner shall, in such certificate, attest to the fact that he or she has sent a copy of
the certificate of termination to the other partner at the other partner's last known
address, registered mail, return receipt requested.
(c) Certification of Creation and Termination: To be effective, certificates of domestic
partnership and certificates of termination must be certified by the city manager. Certificates
of domestic partnership and certificates of termination may be filed with the city manager.
The city manager shall assess a fee for certifying such certificates, and provide one certified
copy to one or both of the parties.
(d) Subsequent Domestic Partnerships: No person shall enter into a domestic partnership after
termination until at least ninety days after the termination of any such prior domestic
partnership.
~(e) Fee: An applicant for a certificate documenting the creation or termination of a domestic
partnership shall pay the fee in Section 4-20-58, B.R.C. 1981.
( fl Administration: The city manager may make available forxns for creating and terminating
domestic partnerships, which forms shall meet all requirements for registering a domestic
partnership pursuant to this chapter. In addition to meeting the foregoing requirements of this
chapter, any forms provided by the city manager shall include a statement that under current
law registering a domestic partnership under the provisions of this chapter does not alter the
parties' contract or property rights.
K:~PLCTJ~o-domesric registry-HRC-PB draft.ehf.doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
7
12-4-5 Recognition of Domestic Partnerships Registered in other Jurisdictions.
The city recognizes the domestic partnerships that are publicly documented and created under other
laws of other jurisdictions that meet requirements that are similar to the requirements of Section 12-
4-3, "Requirements for pomestic Partnerships," B.R.C. 1981.
12-4-6 Private Registry of Domestic Partnerships.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the city manager to continue the
practice of allowing private registration of domestic partnership between two individuals.
However, any privileges granted by the registration pursuant to Section 12-4-4, "Creation and
Termination of Domestic Parhierships," B.R.C. 1981 shall accrue to such privately registered
domestic partnerships upon the presentation of such private registration certified by the city
manager.
12-4-7 Rules and Rulemaking.
(a) Rulemakin~ Authoritv: The city manager may promulgate such rule as the manager
considers necessary to implement and enforce this chapter. All such rules shall be adopted
in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Violation of Rules Prohibited: No person shall violate any rule issued by the city manager
under this section.
Section 14. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 15. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY this day of , 2~_
Mayor
K:~PLCIJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.eh£doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
g
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:~PLCiJ~o-domestic registry-HRC-PB draft.eh£doc
Draft: October 9, 2004
9
r~
CITI'OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA IT~M
M~ETING DATE: April 20, 2004
AGENDA TITLE:
Second reading and consideration of Ordinance #7356 amending the occupancy
requirements and regulations related to the de~nition of "consanguinity" in Chapters 1-2, 3-
], and 9-1 B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth details in relation thereto.
PRESENT~RS:
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Liz Hanson, Acting Land Use Review Manager
Gary I~-etschmer, Senior Planner
Fxecutive Summary:
At the February 10," 2004 study session, City Council discussed and evaluated
modifications to the de~nition of "Family" to be more inclusive of extended family
members including revisions to the term so that it would not have a discriminatory impact
on non-traditiona] families by replacing references to married couples with "two heads of
a household". An impact associated ~~~ith the ]atter change could be a potential increase in
occupancy. The Council narrowed the discussion to two options and directed staff to
present those options to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Staff
research into options has continued and an alternative approach has been identi~ed.
.Fiscal Imnacts:
No fiscal impacts to the city are anticipated from the proposed amendment.
Other Imnacts•
These amendments will improve clarity of the existing code and address social issues of
importance to the community. The ordinance, if not revised to minimize the potential for
occupancy abuse, could result in an on-going occupancy concerns in impacted
neighborhoods.
]3oard and Commission Feedback:
S:\HHS\l~B\NRC\2004Ussues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
At its February 26, 2004 hearing the Plannin~ Board recommended that City Council
adopt the following proposed ]and use regulation amendments: a change in the de~nition
of "farnily" and "consan~uinity" (droppin~ the reference to "marriage" in the de~nition)
and an allowance that "two heads .of household" be allowed two roomers in the low
density and lower zoning districts (shown as Option 1 in the staff inemo). Passed 5 to l,
Pommer opposed, favoring instead Option 2, as recommended by staff.
The Board indicated that the ~oal of making the ordanance marria~e neutral wei~hed
]~eavily in its decision. Option 2 introduced a new variable requiring home ownership
versus non-ownership on ~~~hich to base maximum permitted occupancy. The board felt
that this option would result in reduced or lost housing opportunities. While the board
expressed concerns that Option ] did have the potential for occupancy abuses, the board
felt that the loss of housing opportunities and treating heads of,household that rent
different]y than those ~a~ho own homes (as specified in Option 2) outweighed this
concern.
The specific code changes recommended by the Planning Board included the following:
l) Make the definition of "ConsanQuinity" marr~a~e neutral by removing
refe~-ences to husbands and wives and replacing those terms with "heads of
the household";
"Consang~.n:».it~~" means only the followi~ig persons are related within the
~ .. .:....: .... :. . . ~ .: ... : ~. , ::. .,. :.
,.,
~.,.
~e~rc-~fo.ui=t7~ degree of consal~.gui~iat~;.:.:z.u,:.,~,;;~,a~~~~~;~~>i;.:~:;;;>;'~~:::::to''i~ie ~
,
_ .,_; .,., ~,>:._:.::.t~uo
_..
, .
_.:, . . ;- ;.::.~....,...:, .. _ . .. ......__..._........_.._... ..
lzeads: of t1ie;; :1io:use,liold: pare~its mid cliil.dren, gra~idparents a~zd
grandchild~~e~i, brothers a».d siste~~s, auiits aazd un.cles, ~~~iephews a~zd
::.::::: .:....,:.....-: ..: ,::..,..:::::-~:,,;:: :,:.. :.:-::.. ;.,~.: .:::._:....:.:: ::::>:.:....~ ::...
_,, _ ...
nieces, ~~~rst cousi~is, ~ga~eat; `g'ra~idcliildreri~: ga-eat~ ;gr."aiidpare~:ts;.;~:reat
,
great:. ',g~ a~~d clzil~ren, g~ eat ;$~ eat grandpa~:ents, ,,; ~rundnaece~;:
„
, :. .,
randize. 7~e~s, , `
g. p ' gi~eat au~zts, a~~d ,~i~eaZ u~zcZe~: These relationships ~nay be
of t1~.e w1~.ole or half blood, b~~ adoptio~i, or Uy affinity. (Additions and
deletions are highlighted)
2) Define "Neads of the household" as: "up to two J~ersons tliat live together,
who pool tl~eir resources, a~id s7~.are the respo~isibilit~~ for providing for
support of tlie family. "
3) Define "Family" as: °people ~-elated up to the fourth degl-ee of consangui~iity
to the heads of ~he househol.d tlzat occupy a dwelling u~zit. "
Public Feedback:
Potential impacts of the proposed chan~es were ~rst raised by neibhborhood
representatives at a P]anning Board study session on February 27, 2003 to discuss the
2002/2003 Land Use Regulation amendments.
~:\HI~S\NB\HRC\2004Ussues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
Staff conducted a public meeting in October of 2003 to discuss these issues and other
related issues. Approximately 25 people attended which included neighborhood
representatives, students, university housin~ representatives, ]andlords, and cooperative
housing advocates. In general, the comments received were divided between those
concerned about neighborhood protection and those who questioned the need for
occupancy restrictions.
At the February 26, 2004 Planning Board meetin~, those addressin~ this item generally
supported the chan~es to make the definition of family marria~e neutral and revising the
ordinance to be more inc]usive of extended fanvly members. They, however, expressed
concerns about the term "heads of a household" and the lack of criteria in the definition
that would prevent two people fi-om declarin~ themselves heads of a household for the
sole reason of increasing occupancy in lovs density nei~hborhoods. Any increase in
occupancy in low density neighborhoods was identi~ed as being unacceptable.
Numerous e-mails have been sent to City Council in response to the Planning Board
recommendation. In summary, one letter suggests not re~ulatin~ occupancy at all but
encourages strict enforcement of all environmental regulations (noise, trash, parking,
etc.). All the remaining letters are opposed to any changes that could have an impact of
increasing allowable occupancy.
A community meeting ~~~as held on March 30, 2004. The options that have been evaluated
by the Planning Board and City Counci] were discussed as well as several other options
that are being evaluated by staff. The feedback from this meeting was compiled and
d~stributed to City Council in a memorandum dated March 31, 2004.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the introduction, first reading, and motion to
order publishing by title only, an ordinance amending Title 9"Land Use Regulation"
BRC 1981 to: 1) modify the term "family" as used in Section 9-3.2-8 (a)(2) "Occupancy
of Units" to make it more inclusive of extended fanuly members and marriage neutral; .
and 2) amendments to the occupancy ]imitations for dwelling units in low density
residentia] zones as recommended by the P]anning Board. Staff, however, recommends
that the original definition of "heads of a household" be revised to be more explicit and
prevent potential occupancy increases which are possible with the initial definition (See
Option lA).
~
1~'ote: The attached ordinance reflects Option 1 as recommended by the Planning Board.
Should the Council wish to revise the. langua~e to reflect Option lA, the attached
ordinance would have to be amended. ,
Analysis•
The proposed amendments have been divided into two parts for discussinn purposes:
S:\HNS\NB\HRC\2004Ussues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
Pa.rt "A"- ~l7odifj~ t1~.e te~•~n `fam.il~~" a.n.d 11~.e de~nition of "consangui~zity"
to be inore ir~.clusi.ve of ea:tended fa.niily ~ne~nbers: a~zd
Pa.rt "B"- Ch.ar~ge t17.e occupan.cy seclioli of the code to nr.ake it »iarriage
n.eutral and to acknoN~ledge oth.er fo~•ms of doniestic
reZa.ti.onsl~.ips a».d address occupaTicy related issues that result
fi•om this cl~.ange.
Part "A" Discussion & Analysis:
The City of Boulder 1-~uman Relations Commission requested that the definition
of family be amended to be more inclusive of extended family members. This is
especia]]y important to ethnic communities and families. The care of senior
relatives is deemed to be an important family obli~ation in many ethnic
communities. The recommendation is to ~nclude great-~randparents and great-
aunts and ~reat-uncJes within the family definition. The current definition of
family which resti-icts family members to the second de~ree of consanguinity does
not accomplish this.
Consanguinity is currently defined as:
"Consanguinit~~" »~eans only the follo~~-in.g perso~is are related within the second
degree of consa~igui~iit~~: 1~.usbands and ti~-ives, pa~-e~its a~id c7iildreii, gra~idparents
al~.d grandchildi-en, brother and sisters, aunts and u~icles and iiephews a~id nieces,
and first cousins. These ~~elatio~islzips may be of tlie wliole or Iialf blood, by
a.doptio~z, or- by affin.it~~. (Section 9-1-3(a), B.R.G 1981)
To allow the extended family members referenced to reside in the same dwelling
unit, the degree of consan~uinity would have to be chanaed from the second to
the fourth. Alternatively, the city could expand the definition of consanguinity to
indicate those members of a family that can reside together.
Staff has received some comments that claim that ]arger families tend to generate
more impacts, such as traf~c and parking generation. While this may be true, it's
doubtfu] that the older occupants (that the change would allow) would contribute
significant]y towards such impacts.
Part "B" Discussion & Anal.ysis:
The loca] chapter of the American Civi] liberties Union recommended that the
city . consider revisin~ the occupancy requirements of the code making it
"marriage neutral" and thereby, recognizing other forms of domestic
relationships. To make these changes, the definition of consanguinity and
references to marria~e in the occupancy requirements could be removed and
replaced with "heads of a household" and a definition of this teim.
S:\HNS\NB\HRC\2004Ussues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
Dw-ing the initia] discussions to make the occupancy regulations "marriage
neutral", speakers at public hearings sug~estecl that the change could be used to
circumvent existing occupancy ]imitations. It was sug~ested that two people could
declare themselves as "heads of a household" to take advantage of the two roomer
allowance and a]low a total of four unrelated people (where only three unrelated
people are cw-rently a]]owed) in dwelling units in low density zones.
As a result of this concern, staff was directed to ]ook at options that would allow
the definition to be "marriage neutral" and to miti~ate if possible, the potential
occupancy related concerns.
The current re~ulations that govern occupancy are found in Section 9-3.2-8 and
are as follows: ~
(a) General Occi.~~~ancy Rest~~iction.s: Su.bject to the provisio~zs of
Cl~.apter 10-2, "Housi~ig Code, " B.R.C. 1981, no persons except
~he foll.owing pe~-sons shall occupy a dwelli~ig u~iit:
(1) Members of a family rel.ated to t1~.e 7~ead of the Izouse7iol.d by
mar-i-iage, a.dop~ion, or blood, up to flie second degree of
co~zsa.ngui~iit~~, plus o~ie or two ~~oome~~s, but only if the quarters
th.at the room.e~~s use da not e~ceed one-third of the total floor area
Of TI1.2 C7~WCIIZ72~ Id11lZ Q71C,~ CI.O ]7OZ OCCU~7~- a sepa~~ate dwelling uliit;
(2) Up to t7~.ree J~e~~so~is i~i P-E, AE, RR, RRl, ER, a~zd LR z.o~ies;
(3) Up to four persons in MU, MR, M~R, HR, RMS, HZ, TB, CB,
BMS, RB, RBl, RB2, RB3, IG, IM, IS, and IMS zones; or
(4) Two ~ersons and any of their childre~i by blood, marriage, or
adoption. '
Options Considered By City Counci] & Planning Board:
At the City Council study session on February l0, 2004 staff presented four
options for the Council's review and comment. The Council was divided between
two options and directed staff to present those options to the Planning Board. As
mentioned ear]ier, the Planning Board recommended approval of Option 1. A
brief summary of the two options and the benefits and/or detriments of each a~•e
discussed below.
Please note that both options include changing the occupancy section to expand
the de~ree of consan~uinity (as addressed in Part "A" above) and assumes that
references to marriage would be changed to "heads of a household."
O~tion l- Retain the current two roomer allowaizce.
S:\HHS\NB\HRC\2004\lssues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
This option reflects the current occupancy ]imitations and standards. It preserves
the ability for families (includin~ two heads of a household) to have up to two
roomers reside in a dwelling unit. The downside is the potential impact to low
density residential neighborhoods that may result from increasing the number of
permitted unrelaied persons fi•om three to four persons. The potential increase
occurs when two individuals identify themselves as heads of a household in order
to have two additional roomers to maximize density. This would not be an issue
in medium and hi~h density zones ~~~here four unrelated persons can currently
reside in a dwelling unit.
Option 2- Allow two roomers if ~he d~velling unit is oivner occupied a~id only
one roomer iiz ~70~~-o~~~ne~~ occupied dtia%elling units (rental units).
The city's enforcement experience indicates that when over-occupancy occurs, it
~enerally happens in rental situations. This option could minimize some of those
problems by a]]owing the maximum occupancy of two roomers only in owner-
occupied d~~~e]]in~s. The maximum number of roon~ers would be one if the
property is not owner-occupied.
The benefits of this option are:
• O~~~nership is easily verifiable and does not pose an enforcement
problem;
• This option contributes to making home ownership more
affordable; and
• This option preserves the three person occupancy limitation in ]ow
density residential zones. ~
The downsides are:
• The proposal treats remers differently fi-om homeowners; and
• The proposal may reduce housing opportunities.
Additiona] Options Proposed for Consideration:
To address the potential over occupancy concerns associated with O~tion 1 above,
two additional options have been developed by staff. Option lA is in~ended to
supplement the Planning Board's recommendation.
O~tion lA - Domestic Partnership Option:
This option is intended to minimize the potentia] for occupancy abuse
associated with Option l and retains t3~e eaisting num~er of allowed
S:\HNS\NB\HRC\2004\]ssues\occopancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
roomers as i-ecommended by the Planning Board. This would be
accomplisl~ed by revising the de~nition of "two heads of a household"
with the addition of the term "Domestic Partnership" as follows:
"I~eads of the 1~.ousehold" means one perso~z or two perso~zs in a
domestic part».e~~ship who live together, pool resources, and share
responsibiliti.es of p~-oviding for niutual support.
The term "Domestic Partnership" is used by several cities and states and
provides a more detailed definition than the original de~nition of "heads
of the household." The proposed de~nition of "Domestic Partnership,"
provides standards that should discow-age most relationships intent on
~ maximizin~ occupancy. The definition was crafted using ordinances from
Madison, Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, Michi~an and the State of I`Tew York as
guidelines:
"Domestic part~iership" m.eans a n~.ar~~iage or two pe~~sons having a
rela~ions77ip which is of a perman.ent a.izd distinct character and
t1~.a~ mm~.ifests a demons~rable a~id recognizable bo~zd of the type
character-istic of a col~.esive 1~ousekeepi~ig unit occupyi~zg a single
d~~%ellin.g. A domestic par~ne~-ship does not i~iclud.e a~zy society,
club, fi~alernit~~, so~~o~~it~~, assoc•iation, l.odge, organiz.atio~i or group
of s~udents or other individuals u~here co»zmon living
a~-~-a».gements, or tlie basis for the establislinie~zt of the
h.ousekeepi~zg unit, is ~emporary or tra~isitio~zal. A domestic
parznership does ~iot i~7.clude ~roomniates wlio establish sliared
living a.rrangements solely fo~- rhe pu~~oses of eco~ioniic or logistic
co~ivenience.
The definition of "Family would be revised as follows:
"Fam.i.l~-" m.ea~is any perso~is related up to the fourth degree of
consangr.~.i~~.i~j~ tliat occupy a d1~-elling uriit or, two people in a
domestic partnership a~id thei~~ depende~its a~zd perso~is related up
to the foi~.rth degree of consan.,~ui~zit~~ that occupy the same
dwelling unit.
Staff would also recommend the creation of an "affirmative defense"
Should an enfoi-cement situation arise as to whet~er two people are a
"domestic partnership, providing speci~c forms of evidence would be
considered as adequate proof of the existence of a domestic partnership:
A~~erson cha~~ged wr'th violating the p~•ovisions of Section 9-3.2-8,
"Occupa».cy of Units, " Tnay affirmatively eszablish tlzat he or she
was a"I~ead of liouseJ~.ol.d" if that perso~i ca~i eszabl.isli that on the
date of th.e c7iaa•ged offense, he or slie was occupying the propert~~
S:\HHS\NB\HRC\2004\]ssues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
as a membe~- of a doniestic pa~~t».ership that was fo~~nied prior to
~Iie da~e of the al.leged offe~ise.
Eslabli.sl~.ine~it of two or moi•e of the following factors,
a.ccom1~al~ied by a decl.a~=atio~i of domestic partnersliip, ~nay be
consade~~ed b~- a trie~~ of fact as establisl7.ing prima facie evide~zce of
tlie exis~ence of a domestic part~iers7iip:
(a) The pe~-son. c1~a~-ged m.aii~ta.ined a joint mortgage or joint
~ena~~c~% on a residential lease ~~%ith his or her domestic
partner;
(b) TI~e pe~-so~i clia~~ged m.aintained a joi~it bank accouiit with
7~is or Iier donzestic pa~-tner; ~
(c) ~ T1ie person clza~-ged shared joi~it liabilities such as credit
ca~~ds or car loa~is with his or her domestic pa~-t~ier;
(d) The pe~~son cl~.a~~ged mainlai~ied joint ow~iership of
significant p~~ope~~t~~, such as a vel~.i.cle or house, with his or
Izer doniestic part~ier;
(e) Tlie person clza~-ged I~ad establisl~.ed mutual d.urable health
care po~a%ers of auo~~ney i~-itl~ his or her d.omestic partner;
(f) The ~e~~son c1~.a~~ged m.ai»rained mutual wills, life insurance
policies or retirenie~it a~inuities with liis or her doniestic
pa~-tner i~i ti1,l~ich each dom.estic pa.~~tner was ~iamed as the
~~rima~y beneficiary priniary of the other;
(g) The person charged and his or her domes~ic partrier
m.a.i».lained mutual w~-itten ag~-eements or contracts
im~osi.ng mutual suppo~~t obligatioris or providiT~g for the
joint ow~ierslzip of assets ; or
(1z) TI~.e perso~i cliarged can produce a copy of a declaration,
c~ffidavit, o~~ si»zilar docume~zt that was filed with a
gonernanental entit~~ prior to tl~.e date of the alleged offense
an.d rhat includes a statement of inte~it o~i tlie part of the
person. and his or Izei- doin.estic pa~•t~ier to be recogiiiz.ed as
a dom.estic part~ierslzip.
Option 3- No Change or Minimal Change:
~ This option is a"no change" or "minimal revision" approach. The current
occupaney regulations, while not reflecting or acknowledging non-
traditiona] lifestyles and living arrangements, would pass le~al and
constitutional challen~es. The changes being requested, while desirable,
" are not legally required.
The changes requested by the Human Relations Committee to make the
definition of "Family" more inclusive of a broader range of relations,
could be accommodated with minimal chan~es to the existing re~ulations
S:\HNS\NB\NRC\2004\]ssues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc
and ~~~ithout impacting or ~enerating any of the occupancy rel~ated issues.
This could be done by replacing "second de~ree" with "fourth de~ree" in
the existing definition of consanguinity.
Enforcement:
In keeping with City Counci] Resolution 903 (Guiding Principles and Policies for
Code Enforcement), the city's occupancy re~ulations are enforced on a complaint
basis and as a follow up to other enforcement efforts involving matters such as
noise, trash and parking.
Fifty-four occupancy cases ~~~ere investiQated in 2003 and two summons were
issued for violations of the c~ty's occupancy re~ulations. Seventy-one cases were
investigated in 2002 and 5 of those cases resulted in the issuance of a summons.
l~~one of these cases involved definition of a family or non-traditiona] household
issues.
Rarely do issues involving non-traditiona] couples or families arise. During the
last five years, staff can recall only three such~cases. One complaint related to a
property in the East Aurora neighborhood and two complaints related to
properties in the Keewaydin nei~hborhood. I.n two of these cases, the heads of the
household indicated that they had "common ]aw" marriages. The third case
involved a couple of the same sex. All three cases involved rental properties.
In all three cases, the couples demonstrated their status as joint heads of
household by producing financial records (jointly filed tax returns and banking
statements). This information was accepted as adequate documentation, the
impact issues that caused the initia] complaints were resolved, arrd the cases were
closed.
Code enforcement staff has not used the domestic partnership registration as a
means to verify relationships since the re~istration is voluntary, and has no ]egal
status. I~owever, one city administrative staff person involved with the rental
]icensing program had incorrectly advised some citizens that staff did rely on the
domestic partnership registration. Staff training v,~as provided to remedy this
situation and correct the misinformation.
Approved By:
Frank W. Bruno, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A Ordinance
S:\HHS\NB\HRC\2004Ussues\occupancy CC memo - Attach B.doc