cboboggs
Moderator
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
I'll bring the soda and the milk duds.
Keep us posted.
I'll bring the soda and the milk duds.
Keep us posted.
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
- Thread starter mjesse
- Start date
fatboy
Administrator
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
yeah, good luck with that...........glad it's not me.
yeah, good luck with that...........glad it's not me.
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
Most jurisdictions won't touch this anymore... too many "extended" family situations (and some lawsuits) have made city officials rethink trying to enforce.
Going way back to when I was in Florida under SBCCI, all overcrowding provisions and maximum residents were taken out of the property maintenance and zoning code.
With 16 people group home, it's an R-4, not R-3.
Most jurisdictions won't touch this anymore... too many "extended" family situations (and some lawsuits) have made city officials rethink trying to enforce.
Going way back to when I was in Florida under SBCCI, all overcrowding provisions and maximum residents were taken out of the property maintenance and zoning code.
With 16 people group home, it's an R-4, not R-3.
mjesse
REGISTERED
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
Just finished our meeting with the property owner.
UNCOMFORTABLE
Senior citizen, 16 year resident of the U.S. Has finally managed to bring his entire family over from the old country.
Some adult children are out of work and looking for jobs. 8 children ages 6-18 are all in school.
We have asked for a response letter stating that the adult children are actively pursuing work, and hope to find alternate housing when they are employed :roll:
Happy holidays :twisted:
Just finished our meeting with the property owner.
UNCOMFORTABLE
Senior citizen, 16 year resident of the U.S. Has finally managed to bring his entire family over from the old country.
Some adult children are out of work and looking for jobs. 8 children ages 6-18 are all in school.
We have asked for a response letter stating that the adult children are actively pursuing work, and hope to find alternate housing when they are employed :roll:
Happy holidays :twisted:
packsaddle
Silver Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 237
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
My recommendation for you:
My recommendation for you:
Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding
My Grandmother had 16 childern. She lived in a two bedroom home with a coal burning Ben Franklin pot belly stove in the living room; and a coal burning cook stove in the kitchen. The only water was from a faucet in the back yard; and there was a two-holer out back. There was always room for company and always enough to eat.
This country is becoming the most shamefully wasteful nation in the world; and we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. There are over 6 billion men, women and children on this planet and 99.99% of them live in worse conditions than my Grandmother did over 50 years ago; and would think her home would be a luxury.
This is the kind of regulations that prevent working people from owning a home;
"(D) Minimum Floor Area in an R-1 residence district. No dwelling may be established, erected or changed so that its floor area, exclusive of basements, terraces, unenclosed porches, and garages in square feet, is less than prescribed below:
One Story 1,200
Two Story 1,400 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)
Tri/Bi-level 1,300 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)"
http://www.highland.in.gov/municipalcod ... r214r1.htm
This type of regulation is in most municipalities throughout the country.
I have an Energy Code for you that will save enough energy to last for hundreds of years;
E -1. No Single Family Residence may be constructed that is over 1,200 sq. ft.
Shame on us, one and all.
I'm tired,
Uncle Bob
My Grandmother had 16 childern. She lived in a two bedroom home with a coal burning Ben Franklin pot belly stove in the living room; and a coal burning cook stove in the kitchen. The only water was from a faucet in the back yard; and there was a two-holer out back. There was always room for company and always enough to eat.
This country is becoming the most shamefully wasteful nation in the world; and we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. There are over 6 billion men, women and children on this planet and 99.99% of them live in worse conditions than my Grandmother did over 50 years ago; and would think her home would be a luxury.
This is the kind of regulations that prevent working people from owning a home;
"(D) Minimum Floor Area in an R-1 residence district. No dwelling may be established, erected or changed so that its floor area, exclusive of basements, terraces, unenclosed porches, and garages in square feet, is less than prescribed below:
One Story 1,200
Two Story 1,400 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)
Tri/Bi-level 1,300 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)"
http://www.highland.in.gov/municipalcod ... r214r1.htm
This type of regulation is in most municipalities throughout the country.
I have an Energy Code for you that will save enough energy to last for hundreds of years;
E -1. No Single Family Residence may be constructed that is over 1,200 sq. ft.
Shame on us, one and all.
I'm tired,
Uncle Bob
i need some help
i live in reading pa and i have little to none experience when it comes to codes but here is the situation i live with 7 people at a 5 bedroom 1 bath house and a unfinished basement i know you can't live in the basement unless its finished so that was taken care of but i was told unless blood related you cannot have more than 5 people living in a house now 3 of us are cousins and 2 people are having a baby is there a way to get around this i find it hard to believe that its fine for a family of ten to squeeze into a four bedroom but 7 people in a spacious 5 bedroom is wrong i never even heard of this before we are doing this to save money and we get along just fine any help is appreciated please
i live in reading pa and i have little to none experience when it comes to codes but here is the situation i live with 7 people at a 5 bedroom 1 bath house and a unfinished basement i know you can't live in the basement unless its finished so that was taken care of but i was told unless blood related you cannot have more than 5 people living in a house now 3 of us are cousins and 2 people are having a baby is there a way to get around this i find it hard to believe that its fine for a family of ten to squeeze into a four bedroom but 7 people in a spacious 5 bedroom is wrong i never even heard of this before we are doing this to save money and we get along just fine any help is appreciated please
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Who is telling you this and can they cite the code section they are enforcing?
we got ratted out by our neighbor i know we play loud music and all but the man told me from the city that we were reported for something like 16 people i laughed and told the truth and i looked it up our house is a r-3 type i guess which is saying no more than 5 unrelated people to a house im sorry but we didn't get anything official yet
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
You need to read the actual wording of the code section cited. Be sure to also look at the code definition of words used in that section such as "related" or "child". An appology to the neighboor and turning down the stereo may also go a long way to resolving the issue.
fatboy
Administrator
I agree with Coud Dad, turn the stereo down, make nice with the neighbor, it could go away.
We have a local zoning ordinance that states no more than 2 unrelated people in a low density residential area. but as I said in a recent post, proving who actually "lives" there is a booger. "Move" some people out.
We have a local zoning ordinance that states no more than 2 unrelated people in a low density residential area. but as I said in a recent post, proving who actually "lives" there is a booger. "Move" some people out.
imhotep
Silver Member
Good Luck. It is a zoning code issue. The code is available online.shaiman said:
http://www.readingpa.gov/documents/Zoning.pdf
I was surprised by what I found when I pulled it up. I presume you do not own the property. Seems like there are a lot of hoops her.
Papio Bldg Dept
REGISTERED
what ever happened to "brother from another mother?"imhotep said:
Keystone
SAWHORSE
Im with gbhammer, Whoa nellie. That feels like a slap to the face of freedom.
Granted, Reading Pa. has some serious issues but when has it become within a councils ability to prohibit the types of parties in an SFD or any other structure?
Granted, Reading Pa. has some serious issues but when has it become within a councils ability to prohibit the types of parties in an SFD or any other structure?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Scott Emanuel
314-361-3635 ext 27
scott@aclu-em.org
ACLU Challenges Denial of Housing Permit to Unmarried Couple in Black Jack, Missouri
ST. LOUIS, August 10, 2006 -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”
“The City of Black Jack’s behavior is both pompous and unconstitutional,” said Brenda Jones, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Black Jack’s attempt to criminalize people’s choice to live together as a family has earned international ridicule for Missouri.”
Fondray Loving and Olivia Shelltrack live in a 2,300-square-foot home in Black Jack, a suburb of St. Louis, with their three children. Because Loving is not the biological father of Shelltrack’s oldest child, the city has denied the family an occupancy permit for the home that they purchased. The family now faces fines of up to $500 every week for living in their home without an approved occupancy permit.
Loving and Shelltrack have lived together with Shelltrack’s oldest child, 15-year-old Alexia, for 13 years. Katarina, 10, and Fondray, Jr., 9, are the biological children of both Loving and Shelltrack.
“The government has no business saying two consenting adults cannot live with their own children,” said Tony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “The town rejected a proposal to change this outmoded law, so we have no choice but to go to court to protect the rights of this family.”
Emily Martin, an attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, noted that a court in North Carolina recently struck down that state’s 201-year-old ban on cohabitation in another case brought by the ACLU. “The government is using housing laws to impose its ideas of morality on residents, but there is nothing moral about denying a home to a family,” she said.
Today’s lawsuit, Loving v. City of Black Jack, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges the ordinance as a violation of the family’s rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, as well as family status discrimination under fair housing laws. The lawsuit names the City of Black Jack and several city officials as defendants.
Attorneys for the ACLU are Rothert, Martin and Gerald P. Greiman of the law firm Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP as cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.
The petition can be found online at
www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/lovingvcityofblackjack.htm
Contact: Scott Emanuel
314-361-3635 ext 27
scott@aclu-em.org
ACLU Challenges Denial of Housing Permit to Unmarried Couple in Black Jack, Missouri
ST. LOUIS, August 10, 2006 -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”
“The City of Black Jack’s behavior is both pompous and unconstitutional,” said Brenda Jones, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Black Jack’s attempt to criminalize people’s choice to live together as a family has earned international ridicule for Missouri.”
Fondray Loving and Olivia Shelltrack live in a 2,300-square-foot home in Black Jack, a suburb of St. Louis, with their three children. Because Loving is not the biological father of Shelltrack’s oldest child, the city has denied the family an occupancy permit for the home that they purchased. The family now faces fines of up to $500 every week for living in their home without an approved occupancy permit.
Loving and Shelltrack have lived together with Shelltrack’s oldest child, 15-year-old Alexia, for 13 years. Katarina, 10, and Fondray, Jr., 9, are the biological children of both Loving and Shelltrack.
“The government has no business saying two consenting adults cannot live with their own children,” said Tony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “The town rejected a proposal to change this outmoded law, so we have no choice but to go to court to protect the rights of this family.”
Emily Martin, an attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, noted that a court in North Carolina recently struck down that state’s 201-year-old ban on cohabitation in another case brought by the ACLU. “The government is using housing laws to impose its ideas of morality on residents, but there is nothing moral about denying a home to a family,” she said.
Today’s lawsuit, Loving v. City of Black Jack, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges the ordinance as a violation of the family’s rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, as well as family status discrimination under fair housing laws. The lawsuit names the City of Black Jack and several city officials as defendants.
Attorneys for the ACLU are Rothert, Martin and Gerald P. Greiman of the law firm Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP as cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.
The petition can be found online at
www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/lovingvcityofblackjack.htm
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
The Black Jack City case was resolved in 2006 when the City changed the law.
i have given the posts a look over and the law suit does look like a final resort apologizing to the neighbor may help although to go this far in the first place its already to late the wolfs smell blood if you get my drift but your continued help is amazing thank you very much
Definition of a "Family" from the web site.
FAMILY - one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster
relationship, legal custody, guardianship or written permission of a person with custody
or are the great-grandparent, great-grandchild, grandparent, grandchild, parent, child,
brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, great uncle, great aunt, great nephew, great
niece, or cousin less than to the second degree, living together as a single housekeeping
unit; or a group of not more than three unrelated persons over the age of 14 years, who
are living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household with
a single cooking facility. A roomer, boarder or lodger shall not be considered a member
of the family. Shared housing arrangements, where the individuals are permanent or
temporary “roommates,” do not constitute family arrangements. The term “family” shall
also not include the occupants of a clubhouse, hotel, motel, student home or student
housing, fraternity house, sorority house or dormitory. [Ord. 54-2008]
FAMILY - one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster
relationship, legal custody, guardianship or written permission of a person with custody
or are the great-grandparent, great-grandchild, grandparent, grandchild, parent, child,
brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, great uncle, great aunt, great nephew, great
niece, or cousin less than to the second degree, living together as a single housekeeping
unit; or a group of not more than three unrelated persons over the age of 14 years, who
are living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household with
a single cooking facility. A roomer, boarder or lodger shall not be considered a member
of the family. Shared housing arrangements, where the individuals are permanent or
temporary “roommates,” do not constitute family arrangements. The term “family” shall
also not include the occupants of a clubhouse, hotel, motel, student home or student
housing, fraternity house, sorority house or dormitory. [Ord. 54-2008]