 |
City Defends 3-Person Rule in CourtBy Desiree Parker Friday, April 16, 2010 
This house at 219 Harrison is involved in a dispute over the city of Williamsburg's three-person rule.
The property in question, 219A Harrison Avenue, was one of several homes cited for violating the city’s three-person rule in late November 2009. There are four women living in the home, two of whom are twin sisters (though none are property owners). After receiving a notice of violation, the landlord argued the tenants were in compliance with the rule; not long after the violation notice, the city changed its three-person rule to allow for four unrelated people living in one house (with some restrictions). The city contends the tenants are still in violation of city ordinance and is taking the case to court to force compliance. After receiving word of the violation in November, landlord William Busching wrote a response to the city arguing his four tenants were in compliance with the three-person rule. “Your investigation of the violations is inaccurate, and the property is indeed in compliance,” he wrote. “Unless they are in non-conformance of any covenants in the lease, I shall not violate that [quiet enjoyment] provision [in the lease] by allowing the city to harass my tenants by accusations of non-compliance, and further inspections that are unnecessary.” Busching told WYDaily he recently received the legal complaint the city filed with the court, and said he’s sent a response and is waiting for further action. The new four-person rule doesn’t limit the rentals to owner-occupied dwellings, and this property falls within the four-person rule zone. There are many restrictions, though, including submitting a floor plan to the city, having a residence at 2,000-square-feet or larger that’s within the rental inspection district, having adequate parking on-site or adjacent, and allowing for periodic inspections. (Read the complete descriptions here; just click on chapter 21.) A property owner must apply with the city and meet all requirements in order to be allowed to have four renters. Busching has not applied to use his property under the four-person rule yet, according to Zoning Administrator Rodney Rhodes. Until an owner applies with the city to apply the four-person rule, the three-person rule still applies (an owner-occupied home can rent out one room by-right and it can rent out two rooms with certain restrictions, but in both cases the property needs to be owner-occupied). Though Busching had no comment on his current case, he did say the four-person rule “places some unnecessary strain on tenants” and that the rule “is not protective of privacy” of tenants, which is something important to him as a landlord. One tenant at the dwelling, Caroline Groom, had filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals, which upheld Rhodes’ decision. She is currently appealing the BZA’s March 2 ruling in Circuit Court. The city’s position at the March 2 BZA hearing was that the dwelling could be legally occupied by only three unrelated individuals, or a family plus one additional person, according to Assistant City Attorney Christina Shelton. “The dwelling can be legally occupied by a family plus two unrelated individuals only if the owner qualifies for, applies for and is granted a special exception by the BZA,” she says. “This property however, is not eligible for a special exception because it is not owner-occupied, which is one of the requirements of the special exception. “To read the definition of family in a manner to allow an unlimited number of related people, plus two additional unrelated individuals, by right, is inconsistent with the other provisions and previous interpretation of the zoning ordinance and is incorrect.” The city also filed a similar case against two owners of a home at 711 Richmond Road and several tenants of the dwelling. The two owners live out-of-state, and argued they weren’t aware of any infractions. The court date was set for the end of March, but the city and the defendants settled the case beforehand, with the tenants agreeing to come into compliance. |
|
Copyright © 2010-2011 WY Daily. Davis Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Website by Web-tactics
Website by Web-tactics
Comments
Students don't all have cars. And campus isn't a 1/2 mile away - it's across the street. Have you ever been a college student? Ever been to a college town? Ever been to Williamsburg?
The word that best describes campus and downtown is "walkable". Come visit sometime, you'll like it. Try walking, biking or taking the bus here. No need to worry about parking at all.
1) If the city thinks having four persons in a 3-person home is important, they should look at and solve first the huge parking problems in our "downtown" district, FIRST!
2) "Free" spaces, as described in #3, are the 160+ ON-STREET spaces (I counted 'em) the merchants' customers, locals and guests have to use with cost! But they, we, cannot often use them because the college students, generally, take them up, except for Christmas and spring breaks and summer! We've known it, observed it and had to put up with it for man, many years.
3) The five streets listed compose the "downtown" FREE on-street parking district, FREE, again, meaning no cost.
4) After all of these years, also like the locals being exposed to the "confusion corner II" CONFUSION (Richmond and Jamestown Roads free-for-all intersection), the parking problem with those 160 on-street spaces far outweighs 4 students in a 3-apartment!
5) Therefore, our current City Council is out of tune, period! And who really is in charge of solving our local problems?
And what does this have to do with the housing/parking issue?
"I particularly like the rubber pool and the Webber grill in the front yard. Just like at home in Arlington..."
I lived in Arlington. Never saw a rubber pool and "Webber" grill in anyone's front yard, and if someone had that, SO WHAT?
When Ms. Marilla owns a house she will understand the idea of the city protecting property values. If they didn't the landlords nor the tenants would as you can see.
I particularly like the rubber pool and the Webber grill in the front yard. Just like at home in Arlington or Mclean.
Isn't there a local yokel watching things here for the owner? The pool is probably theirs on loan.
Officials of Williamsburg please stay out of it, there are already enough laws to not enforce.
"Downtown" will listed as N. Boundary, Armistead, Prince George, Jamestown and Richmond Road. All of those 160+ on-street spaces are FREE supposed to be open to ALL of us for parking but not for local merchants' customers and locals like me and friends.
And who generally parks on our 160+ on-street spaces in our "downtown"? The College.... It's called a little game, for years, of rubbing off chalk marks, moving in when someone moves out, CLOSE. Employees, by the way, "own" the many and valuable FREE spaces along both sides of Richmond Road. The rest of us locals and merchants know it!
So...the Council has a big issue on Harrison? Try, for many years, the on-street ongoing much larger