TODAY is the day!! Council meets at 4 PM today!
Summary of Thursday’s P&Z meeting, thanks to Adam Easton, Governmental Affairs Coordinator
Council has told us they will have additional changes to the draft tonight, giving no one from the public a chance to review them. Please encourage Council to SLOW this down, at the least.
What’s in the ROO draft? You can view the full draft HERE.
o To be eligible to apply for a ROO, improvements must exist on at least 51 percent of the platted single-family lots in the original subdivision.
o A petition committee would need to be organized. Those on the committee are NOT required to be property owners in the neighborhood that is interested in applying for the ROO ordinance.
o NEW – it was revealed at P&Z that you may lose your grandfathering if you have a change in occupancy. Example – you were granted 4 unrelated when ROO was approved. You rent to a family. You could possibly not go back to 4 unrelated after. Or, if your tenant count decreases for 3 months or more, you would lose your grandfathering. Staff did not fully understand this.
o Homes already having more than 2 unrelated people at the time a ROO is passed may continue to exist as a non-conforming use.
o Non-conforming use homes may be enlarged/expanded up to 10% of original square footage, no strings attached.
o If a nonconforming home is expanded more than 10% but less than 25%, it must be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
o A non-conforming home may be altered or renovated up to 50% BUT not enlarged or expanded.
o If a non-conforming home is altered or renovated beyond 50% of the original square footage, it must be approved by Zoning Board of Adjustments
o A nonconforming home must conform to the ROO if any of the following occurs:
- it is demolished
- land is subdivided, creating additional lots or building plots
- non-conforming use changes or occupancy increases
- the home is enlarged, expanded, structurally altered or renovated beyond the square footage restraints listed above.
We are (as of 7:50 AM on 4/19) up to 3,697 signatures with 28,775 views and 882 shares – please share this out again – we are submitting our official numbers to council at 1 PM http://chng.it/RKDhby9M
Important meeting info – you can speak, but you have to register by 2 pm
- Monday, April 19 at 4 p.m. – Special City Council Meeting
Speaker protocol – you must register online by 2 p.m. today.
You must register online to speak – Please click HERE to register. You can have up to 10 minutes (3 is the normal as an individual) IF 4 people plus yourself sign up. The other 4 must give you their time. Please click HERE for the full speaker instructions.
Zoom info for the meeting –
Webinar ID: 957 1223 0405
Please see below for a ‘plug and play’ email you can send Council (email addresses provided).
You can also email and say ‘I am opposed to the ROO because XXXX. Thank you, signature and position in the community.’ They typically only look at the # of emails they receive and not the full content.
City Council Members:
|Karl Mooney, Mayor||[email protected]|
|Bob Brick||[email protected]|
|John Crompton||[email protected]|
|Linda Harvell||[email protected]|
|Elizabeth Cunha||[email protected]|
|John Nichols||[email protected]|
|Dennis Maloney||[email protected]|
Dear Council(wo)man XXX,
My name is XXX, and I am a INSERT OCCUPATION AND/OR COMPANY HERE. As a INSERT YOUR RELATION TO THE ROO- PROPERTY OWNER, PERSON LIVING WITH MORE THAN 2 UNRELATED PEOPLE, ETC. MAKE IT PERSONAL!, I have been following College Station’s proposed Restricted Occupancy Overlay (ROO) with keen interest. I have a great deal of concern with the city’s insistence on passing an ordinance of this nature in a college town and believe that the ROO will not be good for College Station.
First of all, the nature of the ROO draft concerns me. The petition committee phase for neighborhoods enacting the ROO leaves renters out of the process entirely. ADD IF YOU THINK RENTERS ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND DESERVE TO BE HEARD! Beyond that, the enforceability of a ROO doesn’t seem realistic to me. The city currently doesn’t have the time or resources to adequately enforce the existing 4 unrelated occupancy limit, so it doesn’t make sense to waste resources on failing to enforce another layer of occupancy restrictions. IF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AN ISSUE FOR YOU, YOU CAN MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE CITY SPENDING ITS RESOURCES BETTER HERE.
As a INSERT RELATIONSHIP TO COLLEGE STATION HERE- RESIDENT, FORMER STUDENT, KIDS THAT ATTEND SCHOOL AT A&M, ETC, I know that college students are an invaluable part of College Station’s fabric. IF YOU KNOW WELL-BEHAVED COLLEGE STUDENTS, YOU CAN DESCRIBE THEM HERE. To me, the ROO would have the effect of intentionally targeting all college students for the actions of a few misbehaved ones. We already have city laws dealing with nuisance violations, and these should be enforced with greater frequency against violators on a case-by-case basis.
A ROO would also make it much more difficult for college students to find affordable housing options. IF YOU’VE KNOWN OF OR ARE A COLLEGE STUDENT TIGHT ON MONEY, PUT THAT ANECDOTE HERE! The cost of higher education continues to climb, making it more difficult to split costs and rent a home between unrelated roommates only adds to that burden.
I believe the ROO would also unintentionally target low-income renters and nontraditional families for very similar reasons. IF YOU ARE OR KNOW ANY NON-STUDENT LIVING SITUATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPACTED, INSERT HERE. Splitting rent is a very common method of keeping housing costs down, and implementing a ROO would disproportionally affect lower income individuals who depend on such measures to afford higher quality housing.
IN THIS PARAGRAPH, YOU CAN EMPHASIZE A SOCIAL ASPECT THAT MOST IMPACTS YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS- POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE LGBTQ POPULATION, PROPERTY OWNERS LOSING THEIR RETIREMENT FUNDS, VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, ETC.
I believe College Station should stay true to its heritage as a college town and pursue other policies to combat nuisance violations. I ask you to consider the effects I’ve outlined for you and vote against the proposed ROO. Thank you for your service to the community, and thank you for reading my concerns.