- December 8th, 2006, 9:17 am
#46349
Should be interesting to see how this plays out in the community, once everyone is now aware that this law exists.....
When Dusty DeWitt and Mike De Nova purchased a house together, they had no idea that they would violate Campbell County zoning ordinances.
The problem: They weren’t related.DeWitt and De Nova, both 26 and friends since high school, purchased a house in Russell Springs in June 2005. They then invited two of their good friends to live with them and help out with expenses.
Though De Nova was a first-time buyer, this wasn’t the first house DeWitt purchased. During the last eight years, he bought three homes, fixed them up and sold them to make extra money. Each time, he invited friends to live with him as a way to help them out. Until now, he’s never had problems with anyone, including neighbors or the county.
Last month DeWitt and De Nova received a letter from the county zoning administrator, informing them that they were in violation of county code because the four people living in the house were unrelated.
De Nova and DeWitt own and live on property that’s zoned R1, which - according to the Campbell County code - means that whoever lives in the house must be related by blood, marriage or adoption.
Lynchburg allows for up to three unrelated people to live in one house and Bedford County allows up to eight unrelated people.
Several weeks ago, Campbell County officials received a request from several area real estate agents to take a new look at the ordinance, which has been on the books since 1985. The issue was brought up at the Nov. 20 Board of Supervisors meeting, where supervisors agreed
that it should be re-examined, said David Laurrell, Campbell County administrator.
The county plans to revive the issue at January’s planning commission meeting, though there’s no guarantee there will be a change, Laurrell said. “Given that the board has asked us to take a look at this, it would seem to me that the folks who received the violation might want to go ahead and take a look at their options and see what happens at the planning commission meeting” before they take any further action.
Campbell officials don’t enforce the ordinance unless someone files a complaint, which can be filed by anyone, said county zoning coordinator Holley Yates. “We investigate complaints once we receive them. We do not go out looking for them. We don’t have the man power to do that and it’s not our policy.”
Until recently, the only complaints the county received about this particular ordinance involved college students living together and making too much noise, Yates said. Normally the county averages less than two complaints a year, which usually come in right around when school starts.
That changed this year. The county has received at least seven complaints, mostly involving college students.
However, Linda Burnett’s case is different. A complaint is forcing the Rainbow Forest resident’s caregiver to move out.
Burnett received her violation letter Nov. 9, which also said the second kitchen and bathroom installed in her basement created an additional dwelling unit. Her caregiver of more than five years, Dennis Detew, said, “I can’t see how they can deny a caregiver.” Additionally, the second kitchen must be ripped out if Burnett wants her house to comply with the code.
Tom DeWitt, a local developer and Dusty DeWitt’s uncle, had never heard of the R1 ordinance until recently, even though he’s been involved with numerous housing projects in the county.
“It’s never been enforced,” he said. “How could we know (about it)?” Tom DeWitt added that the county is sending the message that “family status supercedes actual ownership” and that has serious implications on who can purchase a house in the county.
When asked if certain scenarios would be a violation, such as an unmarried couple sharing a house or an unrelated caregiver living with their employer, Yates said, “Technically yes. Any person who is not related by blood, marriage or adoption and who reside together is (in) violation.”
Yates said the complainer in DeWitt’s and De Nova’s case assumed the men living at the house were students. And, regardless of who owned the house, the county had to investigate and issue a violation notice if it was warranted.
If those receiving a violation notice don’t comply with the enforcement requirements in the letter, the county can take legal action. But as far as Yates knows, every violator has complied in cases of this particular R1 violation. And though violators have the right to appeal, no one has taken the county up on that either.
That’s changing because Detew and Burnett are meeting with Yates this morning with the intention of officially starting the appeal process.
As for what DeWitt and De Nova will do, “we honestly don’t have a clue,” De Nova said. “I don’t want to pay for a house and not (be able to) live in it.”
When Dusty DeWitt and Mike De Nova purchased a house together, they had no idea that they would violate Campbell County zoning ordinances.
The problem: They weren’t related.DeWitt and De Nova, both 26 and friends since high school, purchased a house in Russell Springs in June 2005. They then invited two of their good friends to live with them and help out with expenses.
Though De Nova was a first-time buyer, this wasn’t the first house DeWitt purchased. During the last eight years, he bought three homes, fixed them up and sold them to make extra money. Each time, he invited friends to live with him as a way to help them out. Until now, he’s never had problems with anyone, including neighbors or the county.
Last month DeWitt and De Nova received a letter from the county zoning administrator, informing them that they were in violation of county code because the four people living in the house were unrelated.
De Nova and DeWitt own and live on property that’s zoned R1, which - according to the Campbell County code - means that whoever lives in the house must be related by blood, marriage or adoption.
Lynchburg allows for up to three unrelated people to live in one house and Bedford County allows up to eight unrelated people.
Several weeks ago, Campbell County officials received a request from several area real estate agents to take a new look at the ordinance, which has been on the books since 1985. The issue was brought up at the Nov. 20 Board of Supervisors meeting, where supervisors agreed
that it should be re-examined, said David Laurrell, Campbell County administrator.
The county plans to revive the issue at January’s planning commission meeting, though there’s no guarantee there will be a change, Laurrell said. “Given that the board has asked us to take a look at this, it would seem to me that the folks who received the violation might want to go ahead and take a look at their options and see what happens at the planning commission meeting” before they take any further action.
Campbell officials don’t enforce the ordinance unless someone files a complaint, which can be filed by anyone, said county zoning coordinator Holley Yates. “We investigate complaints once we receive them. We do not go out looking for them. We don’t have the man power to do that and it’s not our policy.”
Until recently, the only complaints the county received about this particular ordinance involved college students living together and making too much noise, Yates said. Normally the county averages less than two complaints a year, which usually come in right around when school starts.
That changed this year. The county has received at least seven complaints, mostly involving college students.
However, Linda Burnett’s case is different. A complaint is forcing the Rainbow Forest resident’s caregiver to move out.
Burnett received her violation letter Nov. 9, which also said the second kitchen and bathroom installed in her basement created an additional dwelling unit. Her caregiver of more than five years, Dennis Detew, said, “I can’t see how they can deny a caregiver.” Additionally, the second kitchen must be ripped out if Burnett wants her house to comply with the code.
Tom DeWitt, a local developer and Dusty DeWitt’s uncle, had never heard of the R1 ordinance until recently, even though he’s been involved with numerous housing projects in the county.
“It’s never been enforced,” he said. “How could we know (about it)?” Tom DeWitt added that the county is sending the message that “family status supercedes actual ownership” and that has serious implications on who can purchase a house in the county.
When asked if certain scenarios would be a violation, such as an unmarried couple sharing a house or an unrelated caregiver living with their employer, Yates said, “Technically yes. Any person who is not related by blood, marriage or adoption and who reside together is (in) violation.”
Yates said the complainer in DeWitt’s and De Nova’s case assumed the men living at the house were students. And, regardless of who owned the house, the county had to investigate and issue a violation notice if it was warranted.
If those receiving a violation notice don’t comply with the enforcement requirements in the letter, the county can take legal action. But as far as Yates knows, every violator has complied in cases of this particular R1 violation. And though violators have the right to appeal, no one has taken the county up on that either.
That’s changing because Detew and Burnett are meeting with Yates this morning with the intention of officially starting the appeal process.
As for what DeWitt and De Nova will do, “we honestly don’t have a clue,” De Nova said. “I don’t want to pay for a house and not (be able to) live in it.”
- By Purple Haize
- By jmclaughlin
- By ECC29