Two-person housing limit hits opposition

By RACHEL HOGAN
Collegian Staff Writer

The students in the audience were quiet as the Planning Commission discussed reducing the baseline number of unrelated persons allowed to live together from three to two.

And the members themselves had more reservations than assurances. But when one member addressed the issue of putting the word "student" in zoning ordinances, the crowd spoke up.

"Are we dancing around using the word 'student'?" said Christy Rambeau, vice chair of the Planning Commission. The audience and the commission members voiced their agreement.

Although they recognized that they were creating complications for themselves by avoiding the word student, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to keep "student" out of the ordinance.

Undergraduate Student Government President Mike King was relieved, but said he was still unhappy with reducing the limit to two unrelated people.

"By limiting it to two unrelated people living together, it would make it almost impossible for students to live in these houses. And maybe that's what you are trying to do," King said to the commission.

But Rambeau explained the grandfather clause that would allow homes currently housing three or more unrelated to continue doing so, even if the ordinance was enforced. Either way, she agreed that the plan is not the best way to handle the rental housing situation in State College.

Some residents have complained in the past about noise and property maintenance problems among students living in town.

"I still think the problem is not three unrelated, but how three unrelated is enforced," Rambeau said.

The borough will face a big battle from students and potential renters if they enact this plan, she said.

Rambeau was not alone in feeling that the "ratio" part of the RENU plan -- Ratios, Enforcement, Neighborhoods and University -- is less than perfect.

State College Borough Council Member Tom Daubert, serving as council liason to the Planning Commission, was hesitant to accept the ratio segment of RENU as well.

"Council is not going to pass something that is going to step on people like this," Daubert said.

To that end, Rambeau said the Planning Commission had to look at alternatives that would be less politically troublesome. She stressed creating a plan that the council could easily understand and accept.

But Borough Zoning Officer Herman Slaybaugh was more worried about creating a plan that could work. He said his concerns with the ratio plan include enforcement and conformity problems. People are going to violate the ordinance if the limit is reduced to two, he said, and there would be administrative trouble trying to register all the nonconforming houses.

"Politically, it's a tough, tough, tough question," Slaybaugh said.

The commission found it tough, too, to come to any consensus. After discussing several alternatives, including one that will limit the number of unrelated people living in certain residential zones to two, no one was completely satisfied.

The commission also touched on an idea presented by Slaybaugh that the borough could put limits on specific zones but could leave another zone at three-unrelated and could increase the limits on higher-level zones.

A majority of the commission members voted unofficially in support of a different limit for each district.

Still, despite much protest by some Planning Commission members against reducing the limit to two, Planning Chairman Peter Everett insisted that the reduced limit is not the problem.

"The two unrelated is not onerous," he said. "The onerous part is the percentages."

Under the ratio plan, blockfaces would be limited by percentage and zoning district as to how many rental houses they could have.

Everett stressed that even if there was one baseline limit for the entire borough, many individual zones could be set at higher levels. But the problem is handling the percentages and determining those areas that would be allowed to have three or more unrelated people.