COJ declares unrelated people not allowed by code to share single family home

[BoldBoyOfTheSouth]

How exactly does rezoning from five unrelated people to three unrelated people per dwelling affect gay relationships?  If a gay couple are together and there are say two children of one person but not legally in Florida related to the gay/lesbian partner then three of the four people are legally related under Florida law so how exactly would that come in this case?

Unless you're talking about gay Mormons who believe in Mormon values of muliple spouses?!? (only half kidding)

Seriously, this does not appear to be a gay issue.

Florida will probably be one of the last states to legalize gay marriage before the Supreme Court does but once that happens then this kind of law could not affect gay relationships.

[BoldBoyOfTheSouth]

People seem to romanticize multiple roommate living.  If it was that easy for muliple people to live together without having a dominant person who's in charge then usually infight occures; always somebody who seems to be late on the rent or eat all of the Frosted Flakes or invites a person over for a sexual encounter and that person takes something during their pre-dawn walk of shame not to mention the usual roommate problems.

I'd say, if it works for you, FABULOUS, though, anybody living in the clouds or dumb enough to live with multiple roommates should do as they please but not on my block, that kind of exciting drama is best suited for condos off of Southside Blvd :-)

[strider]

A couple, even a same sex couple, not legally married that has two or more children will not legally be able to reside in any single family home in Jacksonville.  Period.  The way the law is written, this will apply even if you own your own home.

The law states that unless ALL persons are related by blood marriage or  adoption, the maxiumum of persons allowed in a single fmailty home is 5, which they want to be three.  All.  That means when one person is not related in those ways, even when three of the four are, you can not exceed that 5 to 3 person limit. This is how the Zoning head explained it on the meeting. His reference was at first, 5 married couples could now live in a single family home as five were related to one another.  He then came back and said no, he was wrong, the law is ALL therefore all in a single family must be related to have more than 5 persons in a single family home, now to go to 3 persons. So his example was 2.5 married couples could live together, not 5.


The existing law limits the number to 5 unrelated persons and the same applies, it is just unusual to get an unmarried couple with more that three kids.  It is more likely to be an issue when the total number allowed is suddenly three, meaning only one child.

When you look at other cases of unrelated adults living together in a roommate situation, you may be surprised that some actually prefer it.  Rather than being completely alone, a roommate gives you the opportunity to interact with others when you want to or not and be alone in your own room.  I suspect this is more common among the disabled and disadvantaged than anywhere else except for college students and the younger among us who may be struggling financially while trying to build careers. 

In any case, this is just something not needed for any good reason and one that will most likely fail to accomplish what the few want and yet has a lot of potential for doing harm to this city.

[river4340]

I will say that we live in a normal, middle class suburban neighborhood off San Jose Blvd. One home in the neighborhood was purchased by investors on a short sale. They've rented it to four  in their early-mid 20s, which usually means about six or seven cars with their girlfriends. 2 a.m. parties, beer bottles in neighbors yards, etc. are not uncommon.

It's about a block from me, but the people next door to it have had lots of problems. Now, the house across the street has been bought and if it turns into a similar situation, it's really going to suck.

[strider]

I will say that we live in a normal, middle class suburban neighborhood off San Jose Blvd. One home in the neighborhood was purchased by investors on a short sale. They've rented it to four  in their early-mid 20s, which usually means about six or seven cars with their girlfriends. 2 a.m. parties, beer bottles in neighbors yards, etc. are not uncommon.

It's about a block from me, but the people next door to it have had lots of problems. Now, the house across the street has been bought and if it turns into a similar situation, it's really going to suck.

This is not fixable by changing an ordinance now is it?  You can not control how good of a neighbor you are going to get by changing how many unrelated persons may live in a single family house.  You can't control how well behaved an owner and family is going to be anymore than you can control how good of a neighbor a renter is going to be.  In your case, one less person would make a difference how?

The five to three is being done in an attempt at making it less financially feasible to rent that house in that manor.  The poor will have to move because they can not afford the higher rent required by less sharing the expense.  So a great way to help gentrify the community and move out those pesky poor folk. And in this case, they are also trying to move out the sober houses but that won't work too well as, well, they will find out soon enough.

[strider]

Newport Beach settles legal battle over sober-living homes

July 15, 2015

Updated July 16, 2015 7:58 a.m.
BY MEGAN NICOLAI / STAFF WRITER

Newport Beach has reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement announced Tuesday.

City attorney Aaron Harp said Newport Beach settled lawsuits with Pacific Shores Properties, Newport Coast Recovery and Yellowstone Women's First Step House, for a total of $5.25 million.

The city spent at least $4 million in legal proceedings on the cases, according to Register archives.

Steven Polin, attorney for the group-home operators, said his clients were more interested in ending the proceedings than battling in court.

"Everybody took into account the calculus – a trial could have taken another two to four years," Polin said. "My clients are satisfied with this."

The lawsuits stemmed from an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts – establishing quiet hours, parking and smoking areas and van routes. The ordinance, still in place today, requires the city's approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods.

The three companies sued the city over the ordinance, saying it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws, since individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group.

After a federal judge ruled that the group homes could not sue the city in 2011, the case went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court's majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.

The city asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the court declined.

According to the city, the city had 25 sober-living and recovery facilities as of February – 15 licensed by the state's Department of Healthcare Services (formerly by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs) and 10 without state licenses. There were an estimated 86 facilities in 2007, according to the city.

Licensed facilities can provide alcohol or drug detoxification or recovery treatment planning. But a facility doesn't require a license if it's licensed by another state agency such as the Department of Public Health.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7990 or mnicolai@ocregister.com