List of "special Uses" in Springfield. (Rooming Houses too!)

[strider]

There are approximately 28 licensed rooming houses in all of Jacksonville.  Of those, 2 are in the area known as New Springfield and 8 are in Historic Springfield proper. At one time (up to 2002 ish?), this list would have been about 40 houses.  I'm sure the rest of Jacksonville has seen a drop in the number as well.  It is not possible to open a new rooming house anywhere in Jacksonville today except in a few small zoning codes with an exception. As the times are changing back to create a need for this type of affordable housing, a newer version of a rooming house may emerge - probably more like a bed & breakfast rather than the old rooming houses themselves. It must also be pointed out that the Urban Core, for better or worse, is the desired location for this type of housing due to the same traits for which we like to live here..mass transportation, walkability, ETC.  This simpy explains why there is a higher concentration here in the urban core compared to the rest of Jacksonville.

This is the actual state licensed rooming houses within the boundaries of Historic Springfield.  It is a different list than SPAR Council posted.

1214-1216 N. Main St.â€"Lone Palm Guest House

1152 N. Laura St.â€"Frances Rooms

1616 N Pearl Street - Ms Carters

1120 Hubbard St.â€"Alco Halfway House

1222 Hubbard St.â€"(C. Louise Wilson) Vintage Properties

1733 N. Pearl St.â€"Home Away From Home

217 E 1st St.& 205 E 1st. St. â€"Dortch’s Rooming House

2020 N Main Street ----  Ms. Lucy’s

It totals eight.  All of these were “grandfathered” in and are considered legal by the city. Not all of them are actually high density, 2 at least are more like apartments than anything else. The licenses actually reflect this - transient or Non-transient.

However, a few of what SPAR Council calls “rooming houses” are not and so do not appear on this list.

There are a total of four facilities that call themselves Recovery Houses.  I say that they only call themselves this because they are really “boarding houses” which only accepts guests that are in recovery.  A true “recovery house” is something else entirely, per the city. Three of these facilities hold licenses from the Heath Department rather than the DBPR.

The only facility that is actually licensed as a “Boarding House” is HAFH, which holds both a food service license and a rooming house from the state DBPR.  Alco House holds a license from the DBPR and the Heath Department, the DBPR license came about from something during the 1046 issue and seems to be just an extra license they wanted them to pay.

So, the two missing (from the list above) facilities are:

1704-1706 N. Pearl St.â€"City Houses, Inc.

20 W 4th St.â€"Alcoholics Service Center

On top of that, there are two or more older ACLFs or ALFs or larger group care homes, what ever they are currently called,  that were grandfathered in as well.  The only one on SPAR Council’s list is:

133 W. 6th St.â€"Ruth’s Family Home Away From Home

Peterson’s ALF   __   1622 Silver Street

Second one found!

This brings the total “Special Use” list to 12. 

If you wish, you could also add low density group care homes to this list.  I know that there is at least 1 for sure and actually the coming one on Boulevard.  There may be more, but they have not really been discussed before so I’m not sure how to find them.  These types of group care homes can have up to six (6) residents and are not considered “special uses” and are a permitted use without exception through out most of Historic Springfield, or all of Jacksonville, for that matter.  The licensing for this type of group care home varies a lot depending on actual clients and what the needs are of those clients.

[sheclown]

Thanks Strider.  I knew you could do it. 

[nvrenuf]

low density group care homes

Is that what the one on Perry btw 9th & 10th would be?

[sheclown]

No, that would be a rental.  My understanding is that it is three apartments. 

[PorchCats]

Question: next door to me stands what appears to be a single-family home (and it was at one time.) I have been in the house and know it has been converted in to three apartments with separate doors, locks, cooking and bathing facilities, etc. but you would not know that from the outside. The renters are generally short-term 1-2 months, some longer, and rent is cash-only. In all but a few cases over the last 18 months, the tenants have been nice, communicative and good neighbors. I know the owner, she's okay and grew up in the house and is having a hard time letting go of the house.

How does this place fit into this discussion, if at all?  I'm not inclined to stir anything up because as next-door neighbors go, we've all seen much worse.

[sheclown]

It is not a special use.

The question would be, is it a "rooming house" or a legal (or illegal) apartments. 

Step One:  Check the property record card to see if it is a legal duplex or triplex. (even if it doesn't look like one). 

Step Two:  Does she advertise?  Is there a sign outside that says "rooms for rent?"  Do the doors have hasp locks?  Apparently there have been structural alterations to the building.  These things would give an indication of "rooming house" as we heard last night, if it isn't a legal (or "illegal") apartment. 

But to me, this sounds more like apartments than a rooming house situation. (The separate kitchens and baths.) There are probably a boat-load of "illegal" apartments out there including a bunch of garage apartments.  Geez.  Do we really want to (as Cindi would say) poke that skunk?

[PorchCats]

Thanks...

Step Two:  Does she advertise?  Is there a sign outside that says "rooms for rent?"  Do the doors have hasp locks?  Apparently there have been structural alterations to the building.  These things would give an indication of "rooming house" as we heard last night, if it isn't a legal (or "illegal") apartment. 

There are "for rent" signs frequently posted on the tree at the sidewalk in front of the house...

But to me, this sounds more like apartments than a rooming house situation. (The separate kitchens and baths.) There are probably a boat-load of "illegal" apartments out there including a bunch of garage apartments.  Geez.  Do we really want to (as Cindi would say) poke that skunk?

You kind of nailed my question, sheclown. I don't necessarily think this is worth "poking".  And if I am honest, I have to admit that personal feelings come into it. While I'm not always comfortable with the transient nature of the tenants and the occasional illegal activity (rare), I am okay with many of the tenants and the owner and would not want to send any trouble her way. I'm more inclined to have a frank chat with her and ask if she's aware of the push for code enforcement that might be coming her way.

[nvrenuf]

Good approach PorchCats.

[sheclown]

agreed. 

A good question to keep in mind is "how long has it been this way?"  A case could be made that its use is grandfathered in.

[Dan B]

One could also make the case, that just because its grandfathered, doesnt make it right.

[cindi]

if you follow the tube top rule you can never go wrong.  "just cause you can, doesn't mean you should"

[cindi]

Like the sale of controlled substances.

i don't understand

[strider]

Determining if a house that was cut up into apartments is legally apartments today is not as cut and dried as you might think. First and foremost, when was the work done? If it was cut up over fifty years ago, the apartments themselves may have achieved historic status. There is a large house on West Fourth that has been apartments so long that the historic department has it in its records as being built as apartments. It was a single family house when built. The owner certainly has the option of returning the house to single family or leaving it the historic compliant apartments. Many other houses fit this scenario. In some cases where owners have been told to convert houses from say a four plex back to a single family, they were told wrong and if they had wanted to, they could have fought that determination. There is always a potential conflict between “original use” and “historic use”.

Determining if a use is legal or not is another story. If one of these houses cut up into apartments is rented with the intent that the renters are there say for 6 months and a lease of some kind is signed, then they are legal, even if the residents sometimes leave before the end of the lease.

If a house like the supposed Bed & Breakfast on Boulevard, that is cut up into rooms rather than apartments is rented with the same criteria in mind and the entire house has less than five unrelated adults and leases with the intent that the residents will be there for more than say six months, then it could be legal. If there are no leases, if the entire house (kitchen, etc) is not open  to all the residents, then it is illegal…actually a truly illegal rooming house.

if you follow the tube top rule you can never go wrong. "just cause you can, doesn't mean you should"

If we follow Cindi’s simple rule, we can see that:

1) Just be cause a house is “set-up” to be a bed and breakfast doesn’t mean you should.  This is actually proved if the house was unable to obtain a license or because it is in a less than desirable area or because it is illegal.

2) Like many things, this is a personal choice once anything illegal is ruled out.  If you think you look great in a tube top, by all means wear one.  If you do a good job on your legal rental, whether some within the community think you should or not, then by all means you can do it.

Going back to that tube top, even if you think you look great in it doesn’t mean everyone else will.  But isn’t that the beauty of life? We each can be our own thing…the laws are what protects us (in theory) from the illegal things so if that person wearing a tube top scares you, don’t worry, you probably scare them too.

[AlexS]

It should be relatively easy to get an accurate list of legal special use facilities from the city. The way I read "Sec. 656.369.  Springfield performance standards and development criteria." is if a facility did not provide timely information it would not be grandfathered in and not allowed to continue.

(g)   Special uses.  Special uses are residential/institutional uses that are no longer permitted in the districts. Such uses may continue if they comply with the standards and criteria of this subsection within one year from the effective date of this legislation. The following uses are identified as special uses: residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents. Beginning November 1, 20008 and thereafter, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
(1)   Information showing or depicting the accurate square footage of the facility's livable interior space and number of habitable rooms, as it existed on December 21, 2000; and
(2)   Licensure or permit information from the relevant State agency showing continuous operation of the facility from prior to December 21, 2000; and
(3)   License or permit information or affidavit if such information is not available as to number of residents authorized to legally occupy the licensed or permitted facility on or before December 21, 2000; and
(4)   Number of persons considered by the facility to be occupying the facility as full-time staff and/or their immediate family members.
Those special use facilities which provide the above information in a timely manner are considered legally non-conforming and shall be allowed to continue operation until such time as the legally non-conforming status ceases, as provided in this Chapter.

[AlexS]

For what purposes, Alex?

If the only way you can find them is by these methods, then the idea that they are a problem is a flat out lie.

I edited my post. I meant a list of legal special use facilities (all other special use facilities would then be illegal). This should put the question to rest if there are 8, 10 or 12 of them. There was a difference in count between the SPAR list and Striders list.