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

[lunacity]

Hi, my name is Angie Luna I run 2 sober houses in Springfield and was recently cited by Jacksonville's municipal code enforcement.  One of the houses code enforcement didn't even enter the house to inspect, yet still left a violation notice. I set up a meeting with the Chief of Municipal Code Enforcement and invited Gloria Devall to join me at that meeting.  We just returned from that meeting this morning where Chief (Kim Scott) claimed was a "courtesy meeting".  Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code".  They were reluctant to provide any information on what the intent of the code is.  Looks like we are headed to court!

Angie Luna

[Joe]

There was a thread about this topic a little while ago.

Honestly, I don't remember the exact details of Jax's code, but these sorts of restrictions are extremely common. They are particularly common in college towns, when neighborhoods don't want single family homes converted into group housing for several college students. In some towns, the limit is 3 non-related people in the same unit.

It's a bit contentious, and I'm not exactly in favor of such strict use-based codes - but that's the law. It's very common and there's not much you can do about it if you are in violation.

Also, Springfield's historic overlay has other provisions against certain social service functions in the neighborhood. Since this forum has turned into the "Springfield Personal Vendetta Forum" I'm sure several members will hijack this issue shortly.

Bottom line, it's going to depend on the facts of your case, but you're probably in violation of some long-standing zoning code. I'm sure you'll be able to whip up sympathy from the forum's resident class-warriors. But I strongly suggest that you have a serious conversation with a land use attorney. If your sober houses do violate the zoning code or the historic overlay, I recommend that you save yourself the aggravation and relocate your facilities.

On a personal note, I think sober houses are a great service, but Springfield is the wrong neighborhood for them. There is still a street drug trade in the area. The same walkabilty that makes Springfield such a great place becomes a horrible liability when it means that recovering addicts are within walking distance of a bar or liquor store. It's unfair to the neighborhood and your clients to stick them in the middle of such temptation. My two cents.

[lunacity]

Thank you for your comments.  In regards to your comments about the neighborhood, your right Springfield is a tough area especially if you are in recovery.  For every addict, if you want to get drunk you will regardless of where you live.  Alcohol is sold in every gas station, grocery store, convience store and many restaurants.  There isn't a neighborhood around that doesn't have at least one of the above and within walking distance.  It's just my opinion, but it seems like this city should be spending more time cleaning up the drug problem than trying to hurt the people who are.

When I rented one of the houses (a triplex), I rented just the first floor, the second and third apartments were already rented out and the tenants were smoking crack upstairs, drug dealers coming in and out of the house and people sitting on the front porch drinking.  I refused to sublease that unit until the landlord evicted those tenants and agreed to lease the rest of the building if he did.  This paticular house is now clean, the yard is taken care of, the doors are locked at 10:30 so people aren't coming in and out at all hours of the night and the families who live there are now the ones calling the police on nearby homes when they see drug dealing and prostitution occurring. 

Sorry, but I feel passionate about this subject.  Getting back to the issue.  The code clearly states 5 unrelated people can live in a single family dwelling and since we aren't violating that code, I'm just not sure I understand where the problem lies.  As a side note, the folks who rent one of the homes have all lived there together for the last 4 years.  This is clearly, their family, they plan meals together, eat together, share in cleaning the house, watch tv together....this IS their family.

[Joe]

I'd check the historic district overlay and see if a sober house qualifies as a use that's prohibited under certain circumstances. Maybe that's the code violation they are talking about. I'd also look at the general zoning code again too. A sober house might qualify as a group home or under some other social service category. That could trigger other restrictions that make it irrelevant whether you are under the 5 person limit.

Having a triplex might be in your favor though. As long as it's still officially a triplex, that equals 3 units, and you could have as many as 15 non-related people living there (again, notwithstanding any other social service restrictions).

Your last point is a dead-end though. There's plenty of case law about what constitutes a "family" and it's almost entirely blood and marriage. So that argument won't help you.

[fsu813]

Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code". 

- "spirit of the law/code" issues are not unique to zoning. These are in play in other legal situations too. More times than not and judge will side with the "spirit of the law" in my experience. But who knows.

[sheclown]

Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code". 

- "spirit of the law/code" issues are not unique to zoning. These are in play in other legal situations too. More times than not and judge will side with the "spirit of the law" in my experience. But who knows.

...and what experience would that be? 

We have a law on the books, five or fewer. If that isn't right, you change the law.  You don't allow field workers to interprete legal issues and then aim that interpretation at a protected class of people. 

And not get in trouble with the feds.

[Dan B]

From MY experience, the "field workers" wont act without blessing of the city lawyers.

[sheclown]

Then we ought to have an interesting time...

& btw, if they are coming after the alcoholics in recovery today...who will they come after tomorrow?  A married gay couple is not recognized as "related" in the state of Florida.  Neither are college roomates, an unmarried couple...

[sheclown]

As per the meeting this morning, the "code" quoted was actually from the definitions (656.1601)  and is as follows:

Family  means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit; provided, that, unless all members are related by law, blood, adoption or marriage, no family shall contain over five persons. Domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a separate or additional family or families.

To quote Wilson:  "No unrelated people may live together as a family unit in a single family dwelling."

This means unmarried couples, gay couples, friends sharing a house, the list goes on....

[uptowngirl]

OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?

Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)

[CS Foltz]

Family  means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit; provided, that, unless all members are related by law, blood, adoption or marriage, no family shall contain over five persons. Domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a separate or additional family or families.
sheclown..........based on that, and a triplex involved, 15 people could live there! I wonder if Louise has been at it again? This is just down her path! Lunacity, 1st meet with most lawyers is free, they only charge from then on!

[CS Foltz]

lunacity.............It just occured to me..........all five are servants, therefore excluded!

[lunacity]

Already contacted the attorney.

SPAR thinks they can bully us, but we won't back down!  These people have rights and we will fight for them!  We didn't back down during the historic overlay and we won't back down now.  Don't we already have a homeless problem in this city? 

[strider]

OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?

Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)

I think perhaps you are confused (or we are both confused…who knows!)  This is not talking about more than five unrelated adults and never was.  It is now talking about any at all.  In other words, two, three, four or five no longer matters, if you are not related by blood, adoption, law or marriage, it is now not considered legal to live together in a single family home because someone at Code Enforcement, and/or Zoning and/ or the Office of General Council has decided so. No law change, no discussion with the residents of Jacksonville, a few paid employees just decided that Louise and Company had the right idea. Just a note, this code is far from new and this is a brand new interpretation, having been previously interpeted to mean 5 or fewer unrelated adults may indeed share a single family home. Not just by us, but by the Office of General Council and Code Enforcement within the last 6 months.  

By and by, gay couples can not marry in Florida, so they would be excluded from that marriage protection. As would those college students sharing a house, the young school teachers pooling their resources and yes, a few good men working on their sobriety together.

Gloria did ask if an unmarried couple was a problem and was told probably not.  And the probably not really means that as long as you are liked, it might be OK, but if someone complains….  So this makes this affair the exact same thing as when SPAR Council’s President said it was probably OK for an illegal rooming house to rent rooms as long as it was to those nice proton therapy patients.  Come on, is this the Jacksonville we really want?  

[uptowngirl]

OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?

Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)

I think perhaps you are confused (or we are both confused…who knows!)  This is not talking about more than five unrelated adults and never was.  It is now talking about any at all.  In other words, two, three, four or five no longer matters, if you are not related by blood, adoption, law or marriage, it is now not considered legal to live together in a single family home because someone at Code Enforcement, and/or Zoning and/ or the Office of General Council has decided so. No law change, no discussion with the residents of Jacksonville, a few paid employees just decided that Louise and Company had the right idea. Just a note, this code is far from new and this is a brand new interpretation, having been previously interpeted to mean 5 or fewer unrelated adults may indeed share a single family home. Not just by us, but by the Office of General Council and Code Enforcement within the last 6 months. 

By and by, gay couples can not marry in Florida, so they would be excluded from that marriage protection. As would those college students sharing a house, the young school teachers pooling their resources and yes, a few good men working on their sobriety together.

Gloria did ask if an unmarried couple was a problem and was told probably not.  And the probably not really means that as long as you are liked, it might be OK, but if someone complains….  So this makes this affair the exact same thing as when SPAR Council’s President said it was probably OK for an illegal rooming house to rent rooms as long as it was to those nice proton therapy patients.  Come on, is this the Jacksonville we really want? 

Is this in writing? If so this is an issue for the city! I would think stating unrelated couples living together would be illegal period, but there is a difference between a couple or two roomates and five or more people living together. The way i read the previous post made me think the city only referenced over five unrelated people.