CCP 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3) Proposed changes to Definition 43 of Section ll(D) 3a) The proposed change to the definition of "dwelling" contains a "circular definition"; definition of the word "dwelling" logically cannot include that term in plural form ("dwellings"). It should make reference to "dwelling unit", which it presently does and which is defined in definition #47. . 3b) For the subject at hand, there is no problem with the existing wording. While perhaps not "typical" fur Arden Hills, I see no reason why hotels, motels, boarding or rooming houses, or seasonal cabins cannot be considered "dwellings". How are these substantially different than apartment buildings, which are not listed? Persons occupying such locations may prefer this as a lifestyle, but also may be doing so out of economic necessity, either temporary or indefinitely. The proposed re-definition smacks of economic discrimination. 3c) I don't have a copy ofthe complete zoning document, but note that ifall new tenns are not specifically defined already, they must be. Examples of this are "residential occupancy" (as opposed to "human habitation" - a more general term which is preferable), "rooming houses", "seasonal cabins", etc.. 4) Proposed changes to Definition 47 of Section ll(D) 4a) The original intent of this section was to be a subset of definition # 43, but the proposed wording confuses this by expanding the scope to the overall structure ("residential building"), by adding new tenns such as "residential", and by redundantly prohibiting things listed in proposed definition #43. The existing wording is far superior. 5) Proposed changes to Definition 53 of Section II(D) , Sa) The existing wording was adequate and greatly preferable to what has been proposed. The new wording would prohibit a couple, such as my wife and I, from being considered a "family" along with other individuals if we were to house 3 or more unrelated people from our hometowns - for whatever reason or duration - even though our home clearly can accommodate 5 or more people. Furthermore, it smacks of "Big Brother" by telling us who can or cannot be considered our "fumily" for housing purposes, and on this point it is simply offensive. . 5b) I further submit that the proposed re-definition offamily invites individual, class-action, and organizational (i.e. the Civil Liberties Union) lawsuits, since it strikes at the core of.individual rights. I have no desire to have my tax dollars used to fight suits created by such legislation, and also have no desire to see the reputation of our community compromised when such suits become public. As with any genera1ized group, including large families, living conditions and overall behavior for students can sometimes be a problem. However, I believe there are already several laws on the books to address this: Noise ordinance. Building codes. Traffic laws. Tax laws. Laws dealing with various disruptive and/or destructive behaviors. In any case, group housing owners and the students themselves should not be singled out any more than a mother and father with a large number of children should be singled out. .