Related and Family Definition Amendment

2. Purpose • Today: staff presentation and City Council decision regarding amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) definitions of “family” and “related” • Proposed changes to the UDO based on previous direction from the public, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City staff.

3. Proposed/Removed Language

4. “Related” – Current calculation

5. Proposed “Family” Definition Family (NEW) – A family is any number of persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that no such family shall contain more than four (4) persons, unless all members are related by blood, adoption, guardianship, or marriage, are an authorized caretaker, or are part of a group home for disabled persons. When counting the number of unrelated persons in a single dwelling unit, a maximum of one group of persons related by blood, adoption, guardianship, marriage, an authorized caretaker, or members of a group home for disabled persons shall be permitted, provided that all other persons shall each count as one unrelated person. Guardianship shall include foster children, exchange students, or those in the process of securing legal custody of a person under age 18. Any asserted common law marriage must be subject to an affidavit of record under the family code, or a judicial determination. The term “family” shall not be construed to mean a club, a lodge, or a fraternity/sorority house.

6. Questions?

7. Relationship calculation Continued 6 person “Family” 4 person “Family” 3 friends 1 cousin 4 unrelated Current 1 family 3 person “Family” Unrelated “Family” of 3 4 unrelated Proposed 9 unrelated relationships 5 unrelated relationships 6 unrelated relationships 4th degree of consanguinity Up to 3 more unrelated allowed Calculate

8. Relationship calculation Impact Single Family Duplex Multi-Family Up to 3 more unrelated allowed per dwelling unit (DU) Up to 3 more unrelated allowed per dwelling unit (DU) Up to 3 more unrelated allowed per dwelling unit (DU) 1 DU 2 DU 3+ DU 12-30 DU/Acre0-12 DU/Acre0-14 DU/Acre Calculate

9. Planning and Zoning Commission Redline

10. Group Home • Group Home: A home serving six (6) or fewer mentally or physically handicapped persons provided the home provides care on a twenty-four-hour basis and is approved or licensed by the State for that purpose. A group home shall be considered a single-family home and is defined pursuant to Chapter 123 of the Human Resources Code. • Chapter 123 HR Code specifically cites no more than 6 individuals, and requires that it be permitted in all residential districts by right. College Station is abiding by these regulations.

11. Planning and Zoning Commission “Family” Definition Family (NEW) – A family is any number of persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are (1) related by blood, adoption, guardianship, or marriage, or (2) members are part of a group home for disabled persons, or an authorized caretaker, no such family shall contain more than four (4) persons. Guardianship shall include foster children, exchange students, or those in the process of securing legal custody of a person under age 18. Any asserted common law marriage must be subject to an affidavit of record under the family code, or a judicial determination. When counting the number of unrelated persons in a single dwelling unit, persons (1) related by blood, adoption, guardianship, or marriage, or (2) members who are part of a group home for disabled persons, or an authorized caretaker shall count as one unrelated person, provided all other persons shall each count as one unrelated person. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.

Editor's Notes

Discussing potential changes to ordinance based on unanimous Council direction. For the audience, an ordinance will not be passed today, but we are discussing options for a future ordinance amendment to the definitions section of the UDO. The expectation from Council tonight is to give direction on how to proceed with definition changes following the information presented tonight. The actual amendment will take place at a later date. Just an overview of what I’ll be talking about. First, background on how we got to this point, how we currently define related and family, and how we count relationships. Then, I’ll be presenting options for alternative definitions, methods of counting relationships, and ways to physically address the issues associated with overoccupancy. How we got to this point: Although this definitions discussion is fully independent of the Restricted Occupancy Overlay (ROO), the direction to change the definitions originated from the draft ordinance, which is in the research phase and on hold pending definition changes. ROO is a potential ordinance that could give certain subdivisions the option to restrict occupancy to no more than two unrelated individuals per dwelling unit. This potential ordinance originated from previous, repeated requests to add an occupancy restriction as a tool for neighborhoods. And this was requested again during the NCO process in 2019. Staff advised not including it in and NCO, not physical characteristic. So Council placed research regarding an occupancy restricted district on POW for this year and asked that we use NCO as a process base and modeling ordinance after Bryan. Presented research in June 25th CC and Council requested significant public input on key elements that were undecided. Emailed over 300 people directly, posted online, created FAQs webpage and survey which gathered over 2,300 responses and resulted in significant concern over our current definitions of “related” and “family” because of their restrictive nature. There were four questions, one of which was “how do you feel about this ordinance and had a scale of strongly oppose to strongly in support.” Because the current limits of our “related” and “family” definitions also limited the number of unrelated, could impact general public’s feelings of support/opposition we’ve stopped input on the ROO ordinance to look at this closer. Now: presenting options to change the definitions to specifically broaden definition, due to the restrictive nature of the current relational status that limits family members by degrees of either blood or marriage. Looked at over 30 cities for reference narrowed down the list to best options for possible adoption in College Station (College Town, Council direction, precedent). Can choose any one or a hybrid of the options. Condensed to two main options with multiple parts, and will walk through them and ask for feedback along the way. Council, might be worth while to take physical notes along the way. Again, once direction is received, I’ll draft an amendment to the definitions and present it for adoption. Then, we’ll restart public outreach on the ROO. Tonight, this is not about ROO. It’s the definition, which impacts other sections of the ordinance.
Current definition. Heard from Council that this is too restrictive, and we agree, so the recommendation is to remove degrees of consanguinity/affinity. Current ordinance says you are not related if you are beyond the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. Your first cousin would not be related to you. When counting no more than four unrelated people in a single family home, cousins would not be included if the family already had four people in it. This is partially due to the way we count relationships, which has been the same for decades.

Related and Family Definition Amendment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Related and Family Definition Amendment

Similar to Related and Family Definition Amendment (14)

More from City of College Station

More from City of College Station (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Related and Family Definition Amendment

Editor's Notes