U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2014, 01:28 PM
 
1,394 posts, read 1,880,218 times
Reputation: 1877

Advertisements

I thought it meant no more than four individual leases per household.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,772 posts, read 43,239,585 times
Reputation: 9350
Quote:
Originally Posted by orngkat View Post
I thought it meant no more than four individual leases per household.
The word leases does not appear in any of the ordinance language.

Quote:
Austin considering four-person cap on

The Austin City Council will hold a public hearing and possibly vote Thursday on new rules to target stealth dorms, roughly defined as single-family homes or duplexes that contain several roommates.
The change would reduce the city’s limit on the number of unrelated people who can live in a home from six to four.
Quote:
OCCUPANCY LIMIT ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATES Q&A | Stop Stealth Dorms
The City of Austin allows up to 6 unrelated adults to occupy a residential structure in a single-family neighborhood. The national average is 3.5. For Texas cities, the number is under 3. Not only is Austin an outlier, it is an extreme outlier.
The statement above does not seem accurate as the word "adults" does not appear in the current ordinance prohibiting more than 6 unrelated "persons" to occupy a residential structure...

I found some of the answers to my questions in the existing ordinance. Item (2) below in green addresses some of the issue by stating it applies to "persons 18 years of age or older", but item (1) below still seems problematic, whether it be limited to 6 or the proposed change to 4, it still seems that it could be prejudicial towards familial status (children), since it does not include the age limitation.

Quote:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin/thecodeofthecityofaustintexas?f=templates$fn=defau lt.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:austin_tx

Division 2. Requirements for All Districts.
§ 25-2-511 DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY LIMIT.



(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, except as provided in Subsection (B):

(1) not more than six unrelated persons may reside in a dwelling unit;

(2) not more than three unrelated persons 18 years of age or older may reside in a dwelling unit of a duplex residential use, unless:

(a) before June 5, 2003:

(i) a building permit for the duplex structure was issued; or

(ii) the use was established; and

(b) after June 5, 2003, the gross floor area in the duplex structure does not increase more than 69 square feet, except for the completion of construction authorized before that date or to allow for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and



(3) for a two-family residential use or a site with a secondary apartment special use, not more than four unrelated persons 18 years of age or older may reside in the principal structure, and not more than two unrelated persons 18 years of age or older may reside in the second dwelling unit, unless:

(a) before November 18, 2004:

(i) a building permit for the second dwelling unit was issued; or

(ii) the use was established; and

(b) after November 18, 2004, the gross floor area does not increase more than 69 square feet, except for the completion of construction authorized before that date or to allow for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.



(B) A group of not more than ten unrelated persons may reside in a dwelling unit if:

(1) a majority of the persons are 60 years of age or older;

(2) the persons are self-caring and self-sufficient and participate in the daily operation of the dwelling unit; and

(3) the persons live together as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit.

Source: Section 13-2-1; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 030605-49; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. 0411118-59; Ord. 20100923-127.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 03:05 PM
 
1,430 posts, read 1,998,561 times
Reputation: 831
Considering that occupancy restrictions are a well-established part of many municipal codes, I fail to see the potential legal problems with this one--in particular I don't see how "familial status" enters into it. By definition "familial status" requires that the children in question be under the legal custody--and thus related to--any adults who have signed the lease.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 03:43 PM
 
2,897 posts, read 3,598,320 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell View Post
Considering that occupancy restrictions are a well-established part of many municipal codes, I fail to see the potential legal problems with this one--in particular I don't see how "familial status" enters into it. By definition "familial status" requires that the children in question be under the legal custody--and thus related to--any adults who have signed the lease.
It's okay to have 10 and up if part of that 10 is family - but not okay to have more than 6 if all the parties are unrelated unless the parties are mostly older hippies (25-2-511(B)).

Seems to me that you treat all related parties as one effective "person" for purposes of counting. If you have more than 6 effective persons then you run afoul of the ordinance. So one house can have a family of any size plus: a nanny, a live-in housekeeper, a foreign exchange student, and 2 renters unrelated to family, nanny, housekeeper, foreign exchange student, or the other renter. This is not a population density control but rather an "anti-mingling of unrelated persons" restriction. But mingling is okay for up to 10 unrelated persons as long as most of them are 60 or older (see 25-2-511(B)).

There are also other exceptions that trump city zoning ordinances including the "community home" exception provided under Tex. Hum. Res. Code §123.001, et seq.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 04:32 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,932,487 times
Reputation: 2546
http://austin.siretechnologies.com/s...4045640586.PDF

Proposed Changes Impacting Housing Affordability:

"The reduction in the occupancy limit from six to four people will diminish the affordability of homes shared by multiple individuals for the purpose of reducing living expense through shared responsibility for these expenses.

The reduced occupancy limit will also most likely increase the demand for both market rate and affordable housing in the city. An increase in demand and occupancy rate will most likely result in an increase in rental prices across the city."

As far as I'm concerned, this should be the end of this discussion.

Until the neighborhoods grow up and offer a viable alternative - they can stick it.

Last edited by Komeht; 02-10-2014 at 05:43 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,285 posts, read 2,388,547 times
Reputation: 1035
Austin City Council talks about affordability being its main concern. Let's see if they mean it on Thursday. It's heartening to know that the general reaction to the "Stealth dorm" article in the Statesman has been overwhelming against the proposed ordinance - particularly since the city of Austin has not completed its own study on homes that would qualify as stealth dorms.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 08:29 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,055,978 times
Reputation: 1112
The nimbys in HP are so ungrateful, UT students contribute so much to the local economy and development of this city. If they didn't want to live in an urban environment they shouldn't have moved next to one of the largest universities in the world.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 76,078,109 times
Reputation: 27635
If it's a SFH and was zoned as such then they already have laws on the books to enforce.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 01:36 PM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 6,040,216 times
Reputation: 2559
Why the breathless hyperbola over the "ruination" of 78751 is just that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:30 PM
 
554 posts, read 934,168 times
Reputation: 423
What is the problem? I read that is too many cars parked on the street.

Find a better way to address the actual problem, instead of making affordable central housing impossible.

Just another way the automobile ruins our community.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top