SPAR: Our #1 problem is "Rooming Houses"

[Springfielder]

I don't really want to see a rival organization, I'd much prefer to have this one fixed

[duvaldude08]

Yeah I noticed that. I parked outside a rooming house on night near 1st and main when I was walking to The Pearl. And I was like, " is that a rooming house?" everybody looked kind of creepy and was staring at me. lol

[CS Foltz]

The shenanigans with the SPAR Council have gone on for several years and it's the same old mantra over and over! The issue is not with "rooming houses" but the controling board for SPAR! They have an agenda which does not appear to include just what the Springfield residents are after! Fast Tracking homes for demolition does nothing except end up with empty lots that do nothing for infilling Springfield and adding to the tax rolls! The idea of "Mothballing" homes makes, IMHO, a very lot of sense and SPAR does not seem interested in that! SPAR is more concerned about "Car Washes" and "Boarding houses"! I mean stop and think about this picture.....you have an organization with maybe 100 members, run by a board of maybe 10 to 12 people and its the same old song and dance year after year. When Louise DeSpain resigned/retired or stepped down or whatever......SPAR did not change so you have the same inner clicque running things along with a paid executive director now! For what.......where is the preservation part at? Where is saving Historical  Homes or homes of architechural interest? What does SPAR Council do? I am not sure this organization is fixable, but if you guys n gals want to give it a shot.........go for it! Matters  can't get any worse since I am not sure that City Hall takes SPAR seriously with all of the crank phone calls and faxes about rooming houses, car washes and other petty things! SPAR needs to do something other than upsetting the neighborhood with Bull Pies!

[strider]

Let’s look at Mr. Moulton’s “Legal Analysis”.

To begin with, here are the complete definitions he quotes in part.

Definition for dwelling unit:
Dwelling, multiple-family means a building containing more than one dwelling unit.
Dwelling, one-family or single-family means a building containing only one dwelling unit. The term is not to be construed as including recreational vehicles, tents, houseboats or other forms of temporary or portable house. Manufactured homes and modular homes which comply with the provisions of Subpart C, Part 4 of the Zoning Code are considered single-family dwellings. For the purposes of this Zoning Code, row houses, townhouses, condominiums, cooperative apartments or other form of dwelling units which are not in individual detached buildings meeting all the requirements of a single-family dwelling shall not be construed to be single-family dwellings. A building in which a room or other portion is rented to or occupied by someone other than a part of the family shall not be considered to be a single-family dwelling.

Dwelling unit means a room or rooms connected together constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for a family, for owner occupancy or for rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, physically separated from other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure and containing sleeping facilities and one kitchen.


Definition for family:
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. The term family shall not be construed to mean a fraternity, sorority, club, monastery or convent, rooming or boardinghouse, emergency shelter, emergency shelter home, group care home, residential treatment facility, recovery home or nursing home, foster care home or family care home

In addition, here is the complete “special Uses” section from the overlay:

(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. As relating to the information submitted as required in this subsection, special use facilities shall not expand the square footage of the facility, relocate the facility or increase the number of licensed residents in the facility. Additionally, if a facility increases the number of staff, including immediate family members, the facility shall notify the Director within 90 days of such increase.
The city shall through annual inspections also ensure that such uses comply with the following standards, and if the property is not in compliance with the standards after a reasonable time allowed for correction of the violation, if the facility fails to timely submit the information required herein, or if the special use intensifies, expands, relocates or fails to report increases in staff in a timely manner, the special use shall not be allowed to continue.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning code, the occupancy of a special use facility shall not exceed any applicable occupancy limitation otherwise required by any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation.
(1) Chain link fences shall not be allowed in any yards along public streets (not including alleys), and must be located at least six feet behind the closest vertical plane of the primary structure.
(2) The use shall comply with all applicable City property maintenance and unsafe building codes.
(3) Twenty-four-hour, on-site management shall be required.
(4) New rooming houses are not permitted. Existing rooming houses shall be identified by one or more of the following existing conditions, each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption that a building is a rooming house:
(A) Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent;
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc.;
(C) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric, or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.




Now, let’s just take a quick look at all of Mr. Moulton’s points.

To begin with, after offering partial quotes of the above, he makes the quite obvious conclusion that “ a house zoned as a single family dwelling unit must be an independent housekeeping establishment that can not be  occupied by more than five people unless those people are related to each other.”  As I said, an obviously true statement.  It is simply saying this:  Five totally unrelated people may indeed legally live together in a single family home or dwelling unit. No surprises there.

Next Mr. Moulton states that the belief that five unrelated persons who pay rent by the day, week month, etc, can live in a single family home is erroneous.  He tries to prove this by stating that those who believe this are ignoring parts of the code and definitions. 

The first issue with this statement is that while, in some cases, it may be true, he would need to expand the statement to include the terms of the rentals or leases.  The terms of normal leases certainly have the renter(s) paying by the month, for instance, but the term is what determines whether it is a transient rental or not.  Even then, the real motivation for being transient or not is that the state collects sales tax on shorter term leases.  Short term leases are legal in single family homes, but sales tax must be collected and the home must be registered as such.  Obviously, a lease that states paying rent only by the day, for instance, is not a single family rental and is treated differently.

To begin with he quotes the phrase: “… building in which a room or some other  portion is rented or occupied by someone other than part of the family shall not be considered to be a single family home. “ He believes this proves part of his case because Mr. Moulton is forgetting one important thing.  A family has already been defined as up to five unrelated adults, therefore, this once again is referring to a person who is outside of that as defined family.  In other words, if five unrelated adults are already living together in a single family home, they may not rent a room or unofficial apartment out to a sixth person.  We already knew that from the above definitions.  This was actually put into the code to prevent a related family from renting a room in their house out without registering the “apartment” and therefore paying fees and taxes to the city.

Mr. Moulton also quotes an exert from the definition of family that states in part that a rooming house or a boarding house is not a single family home.  OK, no argument there.

He next quotes the overlay by quoting the  following from the overlay: rooming houses shall be identified by one or more of the following existing conditions, each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption that a building is a rooming house:

A) Signs that indicates rooms, beds or living spaces for rent;
B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc.;
C) Individual storage of food;
D) Alphabetical, numeric, or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
E) Alterations structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.

It is important to note what the phrase “each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption” means.  It means that if any one, even just one, of the listed items are present, the structure shall be considered a rooming house until and unless the owner of the structure can prove otherwise.  In other words, it becomes a case of you are guilty until proven innocent.

Some of you may think that is a good idea, but look again at that list.  If you have one of the listed appliances in your home ( the overlay does not say in each room, it just says if it is there in the structure.), if your children have their own refrigerator in their room for soft drinks (Individual storage of food), if your son or daughter puts signs up on their door  or you have a sign hanging on the kitchen wall that says Mom‘s Kitchen (… other labeling of bedrooms or living areas) or even if you set up the dining room for the use as a bedroom for a elderly relative (alterations to structures that enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house).  You may believe that common sense would say that no one would believe your house was a rooming house, but remember this is the law and if someone were to call in a complaint on you that you had an illegal rooming house, the rebuttable presumption means you must prove otherwise.  You could be brought up in front of the Special masters to do it.

What this means is this part of the overlay is pretty useless and not really enforceable.

This finally brings us to Mr. Moulton’s conclusion:

Therefore, the notion that if a property is leased, five unrelated people can live in a single family house, is completely erroneous.  In fact, if a home is occupied by  five unrelated persons under a rental agreement, that is more than enough evidence that the owner is in violation of the overlay.

I have to admit, I read and re-read this “position paper” and have yet to see how Mr. Moulton “connected the dots“.  To make his conclusion, one would think that the above information , call it A +B +C would equal D.  It doesn’t.  To make his conclusion. Mr. Moulton had to forget his first point.  Five unrelated adults do indeed have the legal right to live in a single family home as a family unit.  His conclusion seems to depend upon some bit of information gleaned from the overlay that does not exist.

His first point: a house zoned as a single family dwelling unit must be an independent housekeeping establishment that can not be occupied by more than five people unless those people are related to each other.

And his conclusion: Therefore, the notion that if a property is leased, five unrelated people can live in a single family house, is completely erroneous. 

As you can see, they are in direct opposition with each other.  To have a prayer of his conclusion being even partially correct it would mean that a family, any family as defined by the code, could not rent or lease a single family home.  I respectfully submit that his “position paper” on rooming houses did nothing but prove his conclusions wrong.

[AlexS]

First off, I don't believe rooming houses are one of the biggest problems we have in Springfield.

(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, 2008 and thereafter, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
...
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. As relating to the information submitted as required in this subsection, special use facilities shall not expand the square footage of the facility, relocate the facility or increase the number of licensed residents in the facility. Additionally, if a facility increases the number of staff, including immediate family members, the facility shall notify the Director within 90 days of such increase.
The city shall through annual inspections also ensure that such uses comply with the following standards, and if the property is not in compliance with the standards after a reasonable time allowed for correction of the violation, if the facility fails to timely submit the information required herein, or if the special use intensifies, expands, relocates or fails to report increases in staff in a timely manner, the special use shall not be allowed to continue.

(4) New rooming houses are not permitted. Existing rooming houses shall be identified by one or more of the following existing conditions, each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption that a building is a rooming house:
(A) Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent;
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc.;
(C) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric, or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.

The overlay states that new rooming houses are not permitted. That's pretty clear. It also states how to identify existing rooming houses, which seems a bit redundant, as the existing ones should be already identified by those who have submitted the information to the Director as required.

So since new rooming houses are not permitted, lets look at the definition of a rooming house in 518.111.

Rooming house means a dwelling containing one or more rooming units or one or more dormitory rooms.

To make things confusing, we have another definition in 656.1601.

Rooming houses  means a building in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public where rentals are for a period of a week or longer and occupancy is generally by residents rather than transient.

So it seems to me that in order to identify a rooming house, one does not need to look at the definition of a family. Am I missing something here ?

[strider]

The definition and it's list in the overlay is what code enforcement and SPAR Coucnil has looked at as a way to show a new "illegal" rooming house is indeed a rooming house.  Your stance, Alex, could be easily correct as well.

The only reason to look at the difinition of family is to attempt to somehow make illegal the legal rentals that are rented by a "family" of five or fewer unrelated people. To be honest, at that point, it is no longer about what or rooming houses, but is very much about who, or getting rid of peole you do not want in your community. They may be good enough to work for the likes of Mr. Moulton and others of like mind, but not good enough to live in their neighborhood.

[iloveionia]

It is disheartening to know what places/people in this world have come to.  Not just here, but everywhere.
It's simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Period.
We are supposed to help each other.
The most friendliest of people I have met in Springfield are the people who have the least. 
The least friendliest?  Those that have the "most." At least from an economic standpoint. 

[CS Foltz]

I am somewhat old but have to ask...........how would a quadraplex fit into Mr Moultons's picture? You have 4 different family's living under the same roof, but it is the same roof for all four family's. To me it would be no different if 4 or more persons lived under the same roof but were not related and living in 4 different rooms! Thats just mho!

[sheclown]

It is disheartening to know what places/people in this world have come to.  Not just here, but everywhere.
It's simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Period.
We are supposed to help each other.
The most friendliest of people I have met in Springfield are the people who have the least. 
The least friendliest?  Those that have the "most." At least from an economic standpoint. 

I've experienced this myself.

[uptowngirl]

I am somewhat old but have to ask...........how would a quadraplex fit into Mr Moultons's picture? You have 4 different family's living under the same roof, but it is the same roof for all four family's. To me it would be no different if 4 or more persons lived under the same roof but were not related and living in 4 different rooms! Thats just mho!

You make a good point, in theory it is all one roof, but it is legally zoned as a Quad and a single house is not, and that is where he is hanging his hat.

[CS Foltz]

OK............only problem he has then, is with new "Rooming Houses"! Those that were grandfathered before, he should have no say about them....particularly if they have been inspected and passed! Violations if any are corrected and thats it folks! He does not have a leg to stand on.............so the heck with him.....lettem foam!

[strider]

A quad could legally have up to 20 unrelated people in it.  A quad is nothing but four single family dwellings.  The fact that they share one roof means nothing.  Of course, common sense does come into play and four 700 SF apartments, for instance, should probably not have 5 unrelated people in each of them, but when it comes to related people, it is not uncommon for families of six to share less. Just something to keep in mind when looking at this "Position Paper" and what it really means.

[uptowngirl]

You mean like this beauty (one of a few structures left on 7th st between Walnut and Ionia)

[iloveionia]

I just LOVE this place.
It's gargantuan!!!!!

[uptowngirl]

Me too! Sadly here is the what the street across from it looks like:



That's right, completely vacant, not one house standing.