Back to drawing board for boarding house regs

Residents packed a public hearing Monday night and demanded the town do something about the proliferating problems at the growing number of boarding houses in town.


www.rutlandherald.com    

---

‘Rooming house’ issue sent back to commission

It’s back to the drawing board for a proposed change to Springfield zoning bylaws that would establish a solid definition of a “rooming house.”

www.eagletimes.com    

2016-07-26 / Front Page t ‘Rooming house’ issue sent back to commission By Tory Jones Bonenfant toryb@eagletimes.com Springfield Planning and Zoning Administration Officer Bill Kearns reviews a proposed change to the definition of “rooming house” for zoning bylaws at a public hearing on Monday, July 25. — TORY JONES BONENFANT Springfield Planning and Zoning Administration Officer Bill Kearns reviews a proposed change to the definition of “rooming house” for zoning bylaws at a public hearing on Monday, July 25. — TORY JONES BONENFANT SPRINGFIELD — It’s back to the drawing board for a proposed change to Springfield zoning bylaws that would establish a solid definition of a “rooming house.” The amendment failed 2-1, with Selectboard Chair Kristi Morris opposed, following the first public hearing of the amendment that would change the definition for any dwelling unit with two or more sleeping rooms for rent. The contentious part of the new proposed zoning amendment, which caused both Springfield Planning and Zoning Administration Officer Bill Kearns and town legal counsel Steven Ankuda to recommend the proposal be returned to the Planning Commission for a rewrite, was a section that would only allow one individual per bedroom in buildings designated as commercial rooming houses. The upstairs meeting room at the Springfield municipal office was standing-room-only on Monday night, July 25, for the hearing on the proposed rooming house definition change, which was followed by a regular meeting of the selectboard. Concerned neighbors of existing buildings that may be functioning now as rooming houses, along with community members, members of the planning commission and neighborhood associations, and an attorney with a Vermont legal aid group, who said he represented senior citizens, were among the meeting’s participants voicing their opinions on Springfield rooming houses and what could be done to improve them. Those concerns included increases of vehicles needing parking, an overflow of people sharing rooms and out on porches, trash and debris in yards, and excessive alcohol and potential drug use in buildings that appear to be rooming houses, with no accountability or regulations specifically for building owners. However, some wording regarding occupancy — specifically, phrasing that prohibits two people, such as life partners or a parent and child — from sharing one room will be reconsidered when the amendment goes back to the planning commission. “I prefer to send it back and get it right,” Kearns said, following a lengthy discussion and feedback from the public. Morris agreed. “We can do better,” he said. The original wording stated that the definition of a rooming house would be any dwelling unit with two or more individual sleeping rooms for rent, non-transient — “that is, for more than seven days at a time — and not including uses defined as Bed and Breakfast of Motel / Inn.” The proposed zoning bylaw amendments would also add a new section to the existing Article 3 stating that rooming houses are a “conditional use” in the HDR, MDR, RC, GB, and CB zoning districts and are not permitted in any other zoning district. Initial wording in the proposal also stated that no dwelling unit of any rooming house would be able to house more than one individual per bedroom, and in the situation where a dwelling unit in a two-family or multi-family dwelling is to be used as a rooming house, no unit in that house could house more than one person per bedroom. Kearns said that issues such as odor, trash, traffic, landscaping, outdoor storage, water drainage and energy would be addressed through the conditional use process — “like we do for any other business” — when a building owner applied for use of a building as a rooming house. Jacob Speidel, a staff attorney for Vermont Legal Aid, spoke to the board about senior citizens who may need housing that is more affordable than an apartment or a nursing home, and who may live with a partner or caretaker. He called it a “thorny issue” when the planning commission tries to define “who counts as family and who doesn’t” regarding discussion over the possibility of family members, or those who act as a family, sharing a space. If senior citizens are renting a room in a house with one other room in it, suddenly “you can’t have your wife with you?” if this were to pass as worded, he asked. The number of people in a bedroom could also be addressed through the conditions of use permit process, and does not necessarily have to be included in the general definition of a rooming house, said Selectboard Member George McNaughton. After the motion failed, the board then voted unanimously 3-0 to ask the Planning Commission to consider removing the one-person-per-room requirement. McNaughton, Morris and Walter Martone were present at Monday’s hearings and meeting. The proposed definition amendment will be tweaked by the Planning Commission and then brought back before the board, a process which may take up to two months, for a new public hearing.