Definition of "Family" Debated in Eureka
Eureka city representatives and two city residents are in the middle of an ordinance and legal disagreement about what constitutes a "family," as it pertains to living under the same roof. A St. Louis County court hearing is set for today (Thursday).
Having more than one family living in a single family structure is a violation of Eureka municipal code, but what constitutes a "family" is what's being discussed and redetermined by Eureka city administrators and board of aldermen. The issue arose when the 73-year-old neighbor of two women who are roommates at The Villas at Autumn Glen called city officials and complained about alleged violations.
After the complaint, a Eureka building commissioner investigated the situation and determined the women to be in violation of the city's code, section 23-12. The women appealed and filed a petition with the St. Louis County Circuit Court on July 30, according to online court records.
At Tuesday's board of aldermen meeting, city representatives went into a closed session to discuss the matter, then returned to an open session during which they unanimously voted to uphold the building commissioner's determination of this code violation.
A St. Louis County court hearing about this matter is slated for today (Thursday) in Clayton.
The two women, Alicia Wrob and Sheri Clark, who are recently divorced and separated told Patch they simply are trying to "get their footing again in life," and decided to share a residence also for security reasons. They had been sharing a home in The Legends in Eureka prior to moving to the villas, and said there were no problems prior.
The technical question seems to be whether two adults, especially those who are not blood relatives, can live in the same residence without it being considered a tenant and subleasee situation—which if it is deemed that, violates the city's zoning regulations.
"Were we lesbians, we'd be gold," said Wrob.
Eureka city attorney Kathy Butler said Tuesday evening the zoning regulations are about whether people are truly a "single, integrated family living in one unit" with one head of the household. She maintains that Wrob and Clark are actually two families living in a single unit. Wrob has two daughters there at certain times, and Clark has a 21-year-old daughter living there as well.
Wrob and Clark, however, testified at a previous Eureka board of aldermen meeting, they share financial, household, cleaning, laundry, meals, recreational and social duties—making them one family, in practical purposes.
Editor's Note: Patch reviewed all 57 pages of the transcripts from this testimony.
The layout is a three-bedroom, three-bathroom villa. Wrob testified that her bedroom is in the upper story of the villa; Clark testified that her bedroom was in the lower level of the villa. They said they share the kitchen areas, bathrooms and other common space.
Clark said had they known about this interpretation of the associated ordinance, they would not have moved to the villas. Their lease, which is with landlord Michael Whalen, ends in July, Clark said.
Wrob said she signed the lease agreement, and discussed with Whalen the intent to have co-payment from Clark.
Wrob said the neighbor, Mary Jo Hagemann, shares a wall with them, given the villa setup. They were sent a letter from the city, after Hagman's complaints, indicating that subleasing to another renter was a violation.
"Now I have the expense of hiring an attorney, and this is all a terrible waste of time, resources and taxpayers' money," said Wrob, who is legally represented by attorney Nicholas Higgins.
Higgins testified the code's definition of a family is: "one or more persons related or unrelated living together as a single integrated household unit who live together sharing household responsibilities and daily activities, who also share a close social, economic and psychological commitment to each other."
Both Wrob and Clark said they felt they were psychologically closer to each other than their true sisters.
Butler said the zoning regulations are established to distinguish between single versus multiple family situations. "And we recently had amended the ordinance, making it more nontraditional family-friendly," she said Tuesday evening.
YOUR TURN: What reactions do you have to this matter? Would you consider it a code violation? How would you suggest resolving the issue?
ELLEN BRAY
7:27 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Leave people alone, if they aren't causing problems what difference does it make. The neighbor that camplained should pay for them to live separate if they don't like it!
James
7:52 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
This is a total waste of time and money for all. I feel it should have never even been an issue in the first place.
Mary
9:03 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Mary Jo HAGman - quite the perfect name, btw - and everyone else in Eureka should mind their own business. "Friends are the family we choose for ourselves." (Edna Buchanan)
Brian McGuire
11:41 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Ridiculous, concentrate on a real issue like filling the potholes.
Marie
11:45 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
I do not see how this is a violation of the ordinance given the village's definition of family. Butler is a hippo crate to say that they had amended the ordinance to accommodate non traditional families and then encourage the board to vote against that exact situation. The village board should be ashamed of this stance and every non traditional family living in the Eureka area is now vulnerable to the whims and temperament of the village board lead by Butler.
LW
2:41 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
really people, get a life!
they dont seem to be causing problems.
the only one causing trouble is the noisy neighbor.
Ann Martel
4:16 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
The article doesn't say anywhere what prompted the complaint in the first place, but I think it's a waste of time and money, not to mention that it demonstrates an enormous lack of compassion. These are single mothers who are doing the best that they can to provide for themselves and their children. Unless they were creating a nuisance, the woman next door who complained should be ashamed of herself.
ChelseaG
6:42 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
It's people like Kathy Butler and this nosy neighbor lady that make Eureka an absolute pain to live in.
Btw Kathy Butler and Craig Sabo need to stop acting like they're having an affair at board meetings. It's disgusting.
Best of luck to Alicia Wrob and Sheri Clark!
Tricia E
8:50 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
I support Alicia and Sheri as well. The issue is petty and ridiculous.
Pam Eder
11:12 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
This is unbelievable and yet another reason I cannot wait to move out Eureka!!! I agree with ChelseaG...Eureka is nothing but a pain to live in with a bunch of small town busy bodies, good-ole boys club and better-than-you attitudes!
km
4:42 pm on Saturday, December 8, 2012
Really? In this economy people are trying to get by, raise their families and just make it day by day. Have a heart Eureka and leave them alone!
Howard T.
5:20 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Does this mean if i decide to live with my girlfriend (in her Eureka leased residence) that we will need to move OUT of Eureka????? How outrageous!!! Way to go Eureka government....Is this really how YOU should be spending OUR tax dollars????
What's next....outlawing interracial marriages in Eureka?
There should be public outrage over this.....Instead of these ladies having to waste their time in the courts everyone should be protesting in front of city hall and the Hag lady's house....
George Thut
2:37 pm on Thursday, December 13, 2012
If this is what the board of aldermen feel is so important ,then maybe it's time to get a new board.They all voted to throw the two lady's out,so it should be easy to do the same to them.It's time that some of these people stop thinking about how important they are or how much power they have and start looking out for the people that they represent .
Mike K
5:58 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
What is to stop anyone from having a commune in Eureka if one goes by these two women's definition of 'single family', then?
A bunch of unrelated people sharing expenses and living together.
Would two single-parent *fathers* in this arrangement get the same support?
The neighbor was enforcing the ordinances everyone knew were in place when they chisel to live in Eureka. Including the neighbor. It is a property value issue. Ms Hagemann is protecting the value of her home by asking the city to enforce the ordinance.
Wrob and Clark chose to violate the zoning ordinance, plain and simple. They chose poorly.
They should move to some place where communes are allowed. The 21 year old adult daughter needs to find her own place and provide for herself as well.
Will Jordan
8:21 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Its not over yet, at least not the spending of tax payer dollars to enforce morality legislation in Eureka- read about Black jack's definition of family and how much money they wasted simply on mid-western pride and small circle thinking. Oh well glad my friends are lawyers and they will be having some nice picnic's after getting their share of this money!