In Part 1 of coverage for the 6/16 Planning Commission meeting, I remarked that
Whitewater will continue to change, though, and all the overreaching enforcement in the world will not be able to stop it. On the other side of this issue are some who see conditions changing, and decry the lack of enforcement to prevent these change, or to enforce in the way they’d like.
There were two other items on the Planning Commission agenda that I’ll mention. The first was an amendment to Whitewater’s Municipal Ordinances, to change the City of Whitewater Municipal Code’s Chapter 19, Section 19.09.520 regarding non-family households and the number of the number of residents in a non-family household.
The proposed changes had been approved initially at a previous Common Council meeting, and came to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and review. The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the proposed amendment as referred from the Council.
I posted on this topic before, and opposed the amendment as overreaching. Here’s the text of the amendment as referred from Council:
This Ordinance is meant to ensure the right of quiet enjoyment of each property owner, or resident of their home. The constant or consistent presence of visitors to a particular residence can constitute the equivalent of additional persons living there, for land use purposes, regardless if they are listed as residents on a lease or deed, if the “quiet enjoyment” of other’s property rights are affected. For the purposes of this section, quiet enjoyment shall mean actions by occupants or visitors which unreasonably disturbs other property owners or occupants enjoyment of their premises.
In addition to any other penalties or remedies the City, or any landowner within 300 feet of the property, may maintain an action or injunctive relief to restrain any violation of this Ordinance and/or to enforce compliance with this Ordinance, upon a showing that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in an act or practice constituting a violation of this Ordinance.
The provision ‘is about to engage’ shows how far an ordinance may reach. I have no idea how many people will a avail themselves of this provision, but the ‘is about to engage’ provision brings a doctrine of preemption to Whitewater. Good luck getting that right — it’s an invitation to troublesome, meddlesome guesswork.
In two recent meetings, two different residents have pointed out that our current system is broken. Add my view, and you’d have at least three. What’s telling is that two of those people think that if only we’d have more legislation, granting more authority, conditions will be better.
I think more legislation is the least of our problems.
The Planning Commission also approved of a conditional use permit for transformation of a former fraternity house at 1036 W. Main Street, into a 4-unit apartment building. Here, I’d say, “Sure, why not?” The conditional use permit was approved unanimously.
From fraternity to multi-use apartment — easy swap for me, as I would not have been opposed to either.
What do you do, though, when you oppose students off campus and non-single family housing?