University Neighborhoods Revitalization Plan CONCEPT DOCUMENT

Core Value #2: The University District shall be a place of pride by maintaining buildings, and conserving and enhancing architectural quality and character.

This is one of three chapters that address the character, integrity, and visual quality of the Neighborhoods. Issues surrounding code enforcement, the degradation of the open space, and accumulation of trash, litter, and graffiti can have a profound effect on the quality of life for the residents, and accelerate the decline of the Neighborhoods. In addition, a poorly perceived image can send a negative image to potential students and faculty desiring to live in the Neighborhoods, as well as potential investors in residential and commercial property. The issues and recommendations suggested in each of these areas are critical to the success of the revitalization concept.

Code Enforcement

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page

The city of Columbus has codes intended to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of its residents. The Building Code, Zoning Code, Housing Code, and Health Code set the standards by which development must conform. The University Neighborhoods have a disproportionate share of code violations stemming from the conversion of single-family dwellings to rooming houses and other such dwelling units. Chapter 2.0 examines the issues surrounding the conversions, and suggests methods to increase the results from a more systematic approach to code enforcement.

2.0 CODE ENFORCEMENT

A. Objectives

To minimize the current set of challenges associated with the Columbus code enforcement system, several objectives were drafted. These objectives were derived in response to the University District’s very complex code enforcement experience.

The Ohio State University’s large urban campus presents a unique collection of demands that call for strategic planning as an enforcement tool. The use of this methodology, in this context, is fairly new to local government. However, with the national trend of doing more with less, it presents a practical approach toward efficiently managing code enforcement. Strategic Planning is used extensively in private business as a means of assessing market demands and designing products. In the management of local government, the strategic approach is designed to inventory issues, establish priorities, allocate resources, assign responsibility, set measurable goals, and ultimately evaluate success.

The recommendations comprise a comprehensive, multifaceted approach, based largely upon the principles of strategic planning, to bring all properties into compliance. Foremost, there will be policy recommendations that embody the protection of life, health, welfare, and equal protection under the law. The larger policy objectives involve elimination of illegal conversions and developing a policy for recognizing and ensuring safe occupancy of existing conversions. The objectives are summarized below.

Objective 1: Create a comprehensive systematic program to facilitate a more proactive role by code enforcement.

Objective 2: Establish clear policy and procedures to resolve and manage illegally converted properties and code enforcement practices and procedures.

B. Policies and Recommendations

Policy 2.1: Examine the current code enforcement program and procedures, and raise the level of fair and tough enforcement.

Recommendation 2.1.1: Improve/strengthen the current code enforcement program through revisions to the code language and changes in enforcement.

Policy 2.2: Implement a pilot program geared specifically to the University District that is systematic, innovative, and responsive to the issues of code enforcement.

Recommendation 2.2.1: Institute a University District Pilot Code Enforcement Program.. Geographic boundaries should include the entire University District, but as a minimum should start in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods.

Recommendation 2.2.2: Provide the resources for code enforcement personnel.

Recommendation 2.2.3: Institute a Case Management System.

Recommendation 2.2.4: Provide cross-training of all inspectors.

Recommendation 2.2.5: Create technical and financial assistance incentives.

Recommendation 2.2.6: Develop and implement a Public Information Program.

Recommendation 2.2.7: Provide incentives for property owners who address code violations.

Recommendation 2.2.8: Explore new approaches to noise abatement in the University District.

C. Setting and Current Issues

History: The historical context defining the current development pattern in the University District has its foundation in a pattern of conversions designed to accommodate the high volume student housing demand. First initiated to serve the returning GI's after World War II (1945), area homeowners were encouraged to make rooms available to servicemen attending The Ohio State University who enrolled under the GI Bill. Conversions during this period were often done so without benefit of formal city knowledge or approvals. For example, houses currently considered to be 5 - 6 unit dwellings are recorded in the official building records as a 1 - 2 unit dwelling. Current official building records are considered by many to be incomplete since they do not reflect what is actually the case.

Illegally converted units have persisted in the university area because property owners allow six or more unrelated individuals to enter a single lease as a "family" thereby overriding the need for a rooming house designation. A potential strategy for alleviating the continued practice of illegal conversions would be to establish a consistent family definition among codes.

As a moderate- to low-income college community, this area has suffered from housing congestion over the years. Many owners, with the interest of expanded income, converted garages, attics, and basements to create additional housing units. Developers redeveloped available properties by expanding the number of dwelling units per lot. This intensive pattern of both development and redevelopment compounds the problem.

After 1959, the Columbus Code regulated existing housing and required inspection and licensing of rooming houses. This resulted in recorded licenses for many dwelling units. However, many of the units with permits may potentially be in violation of other codes, such as the Columbus Zoning, Housing, Health and Building Codes. While this period marks the start of the official building records, a significant number of records do not reflect accurate histories.

Prior to 1977, many residences were converted to multi-family uses without any permits or with mechanical permits only (electrical, plumbing, heating, etc.). These permits were issued and work inspected without regard to zoning requirements and without a certificate of occupancy for the new (multi-family) use. Another reason for the persistence of this problem can be traced to the 1959, Council enacted, zoning category AR-4, which produced a green flag for high-density developers in the University District. However, most conversions did not meet AR-4 standards.

Without a formal monitoring process in place to alert all enforcement agencies of applications, many owners chose the quickest way to convert their properties seeking mechanical permits. Only after 1977 when the building permit process was brought into the Development Department with zoning did the process begin to change. This was done even when necessary zoning (Council & Board of Zoning Adjustment) variances were granted because of the difficulty in meeting building code requirements for the new uses.

This recap of history is an attempt to identify primary circumstances that led to the current level of illegal conversions and code violations. While history is an important indicator, accuracy is always a problem; the university area is plagued with a disproportionate share of illegal conversions, code violations, and lack of a clear permitting history. The exact number cannot be determined without an extensive survey.

Persistence of Problem: A formal link was forged in the enforcement process with the consolidation of housing, zoning, and building code enforcement under the City’s Development Regulation Division in 1978. However, conversions that took place during that 17-year period (1959-1977), as well as current illegal conversions, remain a problem yet to be effectively addressed.

Currently, rooming house/multi-family owners must prove that the current use has been in place since approximately 1920, or that proper licensing has been in place, including a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for a specified time. Previous lack of coordination among city departments (or endorsement agencies - e.g., Housing, Building & Zoning) permitted many units to have permits without CO, or licensing without variances, zoning clearance, and CO.

Future Activity: Code enforcement dynamics in the University District encompass many facets that contribute to a safe, sanitary living environment. There is a need for more systematic enforcement of the code violations and code correction as a way to preserve the District Neighborhoods. The University District’s diverse populations seek varied solutions to these challenges; students desire a safe, comfortable learning environment, while permanent residents seek a quality living environment with opportunities in self sufficiency, homeownership, safety and educational/economic opportunities, and a contemporary urban lifestyle. Additionally, the dilemma of a large population concentrated in a small area exacerbates the problems facing the university District Neighborhoods. Execution of the proposed recommendations are intended to meet the demands of this diverse population. Recommendations should address historical/grandfather issues, existing code violations, and prevention of continued illegal conversions.

Code Enforcement in Columbus: Code enforcement is defined as the process by which public agencies comply with those laws, regulations, and permits over which they have authority. It represents an effective tool for addressing problems related to the living environment. Housing, zoning, building, and health codes are specialized areas of code enforcement. Code enforcement officers of the Regulation Division enforce zoning, housing, and building codes. Their counterparts at the Health Department enforce the health/environmental laws.

No clear policy or procedure for addressing illegal conversions has been established; history has left this problem that somehow must be corrected. Grandfathering in most cases would be the method for correction; however, in this situation, life, health, safety and welfare must take precedence, and therefore, the grandfathering practice reads: "Buildings and structures in existence at the time of adoption of this code may have their existing use continued if such use was legal at the time of the adoption of this code, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life." (CABO, section R-114 Existing Installations).

A policy needs to be established to address historical conversions. One methodology would be to provide more detailed training for all code enforcement officers in the area of code interpretation, especially as it pertains to the unique issues of the University District.

There is need for improved use of Environmental Court. The Environmental Court is seeing less than 50% of all cases they are capable of reviewing. All cases submitted by the Regulation Division and Health Department are not being brought to the court by the City Attorney’s Office. Vague code language and insufficient interpretation skills of the inspectors in writing the violations may be the reason for many cases not reaching court. Other times, the Prosecutor may not feel secure about a definite conviction. Definitions of use of property/zoning and others are generally vague and tend to favor the rights of the property owners; correction of this particular problem is very difficult because of the prevailing political attitudes which tend to support the individual’s property rights. Any code amendment is subject to the equal protection provisions. Generally, zoning laws are written in the permissive tense. Restrictive law must be carefully written to stand up under the equal protection test.

Current Problems: Generally, all codes address and pursue the protection of life, health, safety, and welfare. The Columbus City Codes that address housing and related activities are embodied within the building, zoning, housing, and health codes.

Building Code: Review of the Columbus City Code revealed no major irregularities; it follows the standard national model. While Columbus's Building Codes carry the strongest reprimand for offenders, only 2% of all citations in the University District were building code violations (DRD 1995). The Building Code addresses the structural soundness of a building, including all of its major components (i.e., electrical, plumbing, and HVAC). The inspectors receive very specialized training and generally are involved largely in new construction. The explanation for such an extremely low citation rate has to do with coordination/referral problems. Once the Code Enforcement Officers (CEO) identify a potential building violation, they write it up and give it to the building inspection section where it is rerouted and scheduled to accommodate the building inspector’s schedule, which may or may not be within a reasonable time-frame. The same problem exists for other areas (i.e., health and zoning).

Zoning Code: The Zoning Code deals primarily with land use and exterior building activities. It accounts for approximately 19% of all citation activity in the University District. The Overlay Zoning adopted in 1992 creates a layer of zoning superimposed over the underlying zoning classifications to correct future activities within the university area. It includes regulations for both single-family and apartment districts. Additional areas addressed by the overlay include refuse area locations and maximum densities for apartments (cannot exceed more than one dwelling unit per 700 sq. ft lot. and for licensed rooming houses, no more than one occupant for each 400 sq. ft. of lot area). The overlay zone establishes a University Area Review Board to review all permit applications for site improvements, construction, and exterior alterations (see Chapter Five, Land Use and Zoning section).

Housing Code. The Housing Code is designed to ensure minimum dwelling standards of every occupied housing unit and generally, it requires the minimum Federal Housing Section 8 Standards. Essentials like water, heat, and bedrooms per person are all protected by this code. Review of both the Columbus City Code and the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) – One and Two Family Dwelling Code, revealed no major irregularities. Housing standards are acceptable and essentially follow the CABO standard. However, the Housing Code lacks two important elements: (1) a definition of family (see Code Comparison Table); and (2) severe penalties that remain with the owner, even if the structure is sold and/or condemned.

Health Code. The Columbus City Health Code seeks to abate environmental health code violations. Equipped with enforcement powers, health department sanitarians combat issues related to health, including noise, sanitation, and refuse requirements. Community-oriented, the Health Department has an education section that disseminates information in the community along with the Community Liaison. Project Ohio State is a systematic code enforcement approach. Sanitation and refuge issues are further addressed in the Waste Management component of this Revitalization Plan (see Section 4.0).

Code Enforcement: Code enforcement is inextricably linked to the success of clearing all illegal activities (interior and exterior). Columbus’ Environmental Court has been created to provide strength and legitimacy to code enforcement activity. The community at-large also plays a role in the success of code enforcement. After extensive interviews with responsible city employees (past and present), non-profit organizations, area developers, and community representatives, the following was found:

The community perceives code enforcement as inconsistent. While the university area has four assigned CEOs, their workload is primarily complaint-driven; the remainder of their time is spent doing research, title searches, making personal delivery of orders, going to court, and verifying compliance, leaving little time for routine site visits.

Illegal conversions are not currently being cited because there is no clear City policy or directive on how to handle them.

The Environmental Court plays a role in the inability to enforce codes in that a percentage of the citations brought to court are eliminated as questionable cases. Currently, there is no evaluation comparing the number of cases filed versus the number of cases tried.

Comparatively, there are very few Health Department cases being filed with the court. The current reorganization of the Health Department (sanitarians) has placed a new emphasis on the code enforcement and the number of cases filed. However, the basic working philosophy of this department is one that seeks to resolve the problem before it gets to court.

Questionable conversions innocently purchased have become a threat to the campus real estate market (i.e., banks prefer not to make loans for uses resulting from illegal or undocumented conversions). The City allowed many conversions with mechanical permits but which did not receive a CO. Therefore, owners should be told that if they allow a safety inspection and make corrections, the record will be clarified. This should be a purely administrative procedure. There would then be a record of the legal use and these properties could again be good real estate investments rather than a burden.

Reactive vs. Proactive: Many University District homeowners view code enforcement as the most critical need in the District. Nearly half of the responses to a "Public Service Task Force" survey indicated a belief that strong enforcement could resolve many neighborhood problems by reducing densities and addressing other violations that threaten the quality of life, health, and safety of its residents. The failure of the current code enforcement activity in the campus area is based on several reasons:

No proactive means to address code violations, particularly illegal conversions without proper permits. (Property maintenance, however, is a greater problem as evidenced by existing conditions, vacant properties, and tax delinquency);

Need for more training and interpretation skills on the part of the CEOs;

No clear policy or procedure for citing illegally converted units. Specific wording is needed within the City Code to address inconsistencies (i.e., family and the maximum number of unrelated individuals allowed in a rooming house/single-family units);

Lack of community legitimacy. There is the perception that code enforcement is ineffective; and

Clear policy for dealing with boarded-up and dilapidated properties.

D. Programs and Concepts

Institute a University District Pilot Code Enforcement Program: The program would be created to meet the special needs of the University District as well as provide the City the opportunity to test various management and professional approaches to code enforcement that could later be adopted City-wide. An important feature of the program would be a task force for policy input. The task force should be composed of leadership from the City enforcement agencies and representatives from the University District Neighborhoods. An additional component of this effort would include the engagement of a legal consultant to assist in drafting code language improvements. There is an ongoing need to have codes reviewed and language improved to meet the basic needs of the community. Typically, these improvements to the code language are made by comparing the language of other cities and drafting a revision for local review and approval process. The recommendation is to engage a legal consultant knowledgeable in codes to assist the Development Regulations Division in drafting necessary revisions for consideration. An alternative approach could be a relationship with the Ohio State Law School that could serve as a clinic opportunity.

Establish a Systematic Enforcement Approach as a Part of the Pilot Code Enforcement Program: This approach will reorient the enforcement process from a complaint driven system to a geographic based system with a priority ranking of areas to be addressed. Further, a high level of coordination and cooperation is required from the various enforcement agencies that would include areas such as: health, building, housing, public safety, solid waste and social services.

Baseline Inventory of Workload: As input into the design of the Systematic Code Enforcement Program, it is suggested that a code enforcement survey of the University District Pilot Area be undertaken to ascertain the nature and magnitude of violations by sub-area. This information, along with other input from the census data and records of Development Regulations Division and the Health Department, will assist in the prioritization of blocks for systematic inspection.

Prepare and secure approvals for the Policies and Procedures for the Systematic Enforcement Program: Draft the modifications necessary to the current policies and procedures for the various enforcement agencies to adjust to the systematic program. Once drafted, the modifications should be reviewed and adjusted to incorporate the comments from the task force prior to securing the appropriate approvals. This process should be accomplished within a six-month period (two to three months for drafting and three to four months for approvals).

Develop and Implement a Public Information Program: Design and implement a public information program to inform the community and more specifically the University District Pilot Code Enforcement area residents and owners of the new systematic program. The campaign should stress the importance of the codes to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community and the role of the Environmental Court in the enforcement process. However, the primary emphasis of the campaign should be directed toward a positive approach to achieve compliance identifying the resources, both technical and financial to help property owners.

Institute a Case Management System: The Development Regulations Division should establish a case management system that assigns a "manager" or contact person for the property owner receiving the notice of violation. The case manager will be a well-trained individual knowledgeable of all City codes and capable of assisting the cited person, and resolving the problem regardless of which City agency issued the notice. The manager will oversee the campus survey as well as facilitate the digital transfer of information.

Cross Training of All Inspectors: All enforcement inspectors should receive ongoing training in their area of expertise as well as in the other codes being enforced in the University District pilot program. The training should upgrade their knowledge in areas outside of area of specialty, code interpretation skills, and the ability to write violations that are prosecuted.

Implementation Resources: Currently there are four code enforcement officers working in the University District as a part of the larger four districts for which they are responsible. It is recommended that two additional officers be hired to facilitate the Systematic Enforcement Program while continuing to respond to filed complaints. The City has initiated the design and implementation of a management information system that will be incorporated in the process when available.

Technical and Financial Assistance Incentives: To facilitate the improvement of property to meet the various City codes, an incentive program is recommended. The incentives will take two forms: first, technical assistance to help property owners determine the proper solution to their property’s problems and second, financial assistance to implement the improvements. The City’s Neighborhood Development Division currently has a program funded by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG ) Program which provides this assistance. Portions of the University District are within the CDBG target area and can be assisted through that program.

Establish an Amnesty Program for Conversions: Linked to the District-wide public information campaign, extend an invitation to owners with rooming house and apartment conversions, or those who believe they may have violations to come forward without penalty. This, along with the technical and financial assistance and the possibility of establishing the use of the property in the building record, should be adequate incentives to have owners come forward. The amnesty should be effective only for a 12-month period, and would still require properties be brought up to code.

Annual Certification of Code Compliance: A voluntary program for property owners who rent or lease to Ohio State students to secure an annual certification and emblem verifying that a particular unit or building meets all City codes. The intent of the program is to give students an added level of assurance regarding the safety features of a particular building. Staff would list only those properties that have the certificate through the Off-Campus Student Services office.

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents.

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page.