Opinions on Occupancy Limits Vary

Occupancy is one issue that could directly affect students by determining the number of unrelated people allowed to live in the same dwelling unit.

The Town Council held a public hearing Monday night to discuss issues raised by the ordinance, but occupancy was mentioned by only one resident.

The council decided to discuss issues brought up by residents in a special session to be held next week. Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy said the specific date will be released as soon as possible.

But after the meeting, several town officials offered their opinions about the occupancy issue.

Many residents have been unaware of the language in the current development ordinance regarding occupancy restrictions, especially in regard to duplexes, because the town has not been enforcing the ordinance, said council member Mark Kleinschmidt.

"It was just nine months ago that we realized that the current language referred to duplexes as one unit," he said.

Planning Director Roger Waldon clarified the language by saying that it does not address units, it addresses structures. A duplex now is considered one structure instead of two units, therefore allowing only four unrelated residents total.

By referring in the new ordinance to dwellings as units instead of structures, duplexes would be allowed eight unrelated people -- four in each unit.

"The current ordinance addresses it as a 'structure,'" he said. "It's the manager's recommendation to change the language to no more than four unrelated people per dwelling unit."

Kleinschmidt is opposed strongly to having any occupancy ordinance. He said the problem lies not in the amount of unrelated people living together but in noise, trash and parking issues. "That implies that there must be something about living with people you aren't related to that makes you louder or messier."

Council member Ed Harrison, however, is in favor of the restrictions. "I think the town as a whole wants some sort of occupancy restrictions," he said.

Harrison said the occupancy restrictions are needed mostly because of parking issues. "When I was in college I lived in a unit with more than four unrelated people, but we had maybe two cars. Now (students park) eight SUVs (in front).

Kleinschmidt is so strong in his opposition to the occupancy restrictions that he said he might not vote in favor of the entire land-use management ordinance if the restrictions are not removed.

Graduate student Josh Steinhurst, the sole resident who spoke at the hearing about occupancy, agreed with Kleinschmidt. "I suggest you address the specific issues ... rather than an indirect, inadequate and objectively unfair occupancy restriction."

Editor's note: In previous articles, The Daily Tar Heel has reported incorrectly on the details of the occupancy limits. The information in this article has been verified. The DTH regrets the errors.