University Park weighs options to enforce occupancy limits near SMU after residents’ complaints

City of University Park City Council heard a presentation on Feb. 18 on possible changes to occupancy rules and enforcement in neighborhoods adjacent to Southern Methodist University (SMU) and received multiple public comments urging the city to strengthen enforcement.

The presentation, given by Patrick Ball, director of community development, summarized how other university cities regulate off-campus student housing and outlined options for University Park, including no-tolerance enforcement of nuisance ordinances, revised parking requirements, special overlay districts, dwelling rental licensing, architectural review and a civil-penalty program similar to one tried in College Station.

Ball told the council that many municipalities use a variety of approaches because family-member counts are difficult to enforce. He said some cities allow higher unrelated-occupant limits in specific overlay districts, impose on-site parking minimums tied to bedrooms, require rental registration and inspections, or create “impact overlay” zones with higher fines and stricter enforcement.

The presentation noted University Park’s current zoning definition that treats residential dwelling use as a household and limits occupancy to no more than two unrelated persons. Ball also described a College Station pilot program that used parked-vehicle patterns as evidence of over-occupancy: when inspectors found more than four vehicles associated with a dwelling for 16 days in a 30-day period, the city issued administrative notices. That program resulted in 54 notices, seven findings of violation and $1,750 in assessed civil penalties before staff recommended discontinuing it.

Residents who spoke at the meeting said the city’s existing occupancy limit is not being enforced. A resident from the 3400 block of Asbury Street said the repeated refrain from neighbors is: “Yes, but they never enforce it.” The resident described repeated late-night parties, blocked streets, trash and other nuisance problems tied to rental properties and said the city’s ordinance failed to prevent those conditions at two duplex properties that had been rebuilt for student occupancy.

Leslie Agaritas, a resident on Milton Avenue, thanked the council for studying the issue and relayed accounts — from local news reporting and former student tenants — that landlords, builders and students know they are violating the ordinance but continue to do so because enforcement is rare. An email from Ed Copley urging strict enforcement was read into the record.

Council members signaled interest in pursuing measures within the city’s legal authority, with the mayor and city manager saying staff will further explore the available options and return to the council with proposals. City Manager Robbie Quarter said the council should focus first on enforceable nuisance issues such as trash and noise, which staff can act on more readily than entering private dwelling units to verify occupants.

No ordinance change or new enforcement program was adopted at the meeting; councilors directed staff to draft options and bring the matter back for future consideration.

Questions and details raised during the discussion included (all cited to presenters or commenters at the meeting): College Station’s vehicle-based enforcement threshold of four vehicles and the civil-penalty schedule ($250 for first offense, $500 subsequent), the pilot’s 90-day active enforcement period that produced 54 notices and seven findings, University Park’s population density (described by staff as about 6,000 persons per square mile for cities over 20,000 population), and SMU’s reported plan to increase enrollment by about 2,500 students.

The council did not vote on any ordinance or formal enforcement change at this meeting. Staff will return with recommended options for possible ordinance amendments, licensing or targeted enforcement measures.