Zoning change and occupancy limits

[olszowka.livejournal.com]

Recently, I received a letter in the mail from Neraj Tuli of Zone Smart Somerville (www.zonesmartsomerville.org).  The letter was urging me to oppose a provision in the proposed zoning changes which would prohibit occupancy of a house or unit by more than four unrelated adults regardless of the size of the house or unit or other mitigating factors.  Does anyone know anything about this?  I believe I am opposed to this provision, but would like to learn more.

Comments

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

See page 168 of the proposed zoning ordinance (http://www.somervillema.gov/zoning/)

[nathanjw]

The strange thing about this letter is the way it frames it as a new restriction - it's already part of the zoning code.

It might be good to get rid of it, but it's disingenuous to claim it's a new restriction.

[olszowka.livejournal.com]

That was something I was confused about.

[cos]

To be fair, Somerville's web site on the zoning proposal says "We’re rewriting the new Somerville Zoning Ordinance from the ground up." I didn't receive the letter you're referring to, but I did look at zonesmartsomerville.org, and that site at least doesn't seem to be framing it as a change or not a change - just as something being included in the new proposal.

In any case, that makes me curious: What is the *current* zoning rule about this? I couldn't find one.

I searched Somerville zoning ordinances and found that Somerville defines a "boarding house" as a place that rents 4 or more rooms to 4 or more unrelated people, and I also found a few other rules about boarding houses, such that a sprinkler system should be installed. I couldn't find anything making it illegal to have more than 4 unrelated people in a house.

[nathanjw]

I believe this is the relevant bit of verbiage in the current code, from the "Definitions" section:

2.2.53. Family. An individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit and occupying one (1) dwelling unit; or a group or pair of individuals, not so related, but living together as a single housekeeping unit. For purposes of controlling residential density, not more than four (4) unrelated individuals shall constitute a family.

.. and then use of "family" elsewhere in describing buildings as one-family, two-family, etc. The boarding house definition is neither here nor there.

Some discussions of the current regulations from last fall (in the context of a proposed new law that would make it easier to enforce, at least against local undergraduates): http://www.scatvsomerville.org/snn/off-campus-tufts-students-may-face-eviction/ and http://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20141219/News/141216796

[cos]

I can't see how defining what constitutes a "family", and then using that as part of defining some types of buildings, can be construed as a *prohibition* on having more people living together.

Both of those articles assert that such a prohibition had been in place for years but never enforced, and that this past fall a new rule was being proposed that would lead to enforcement, but both articles are very vague about the new proposed rule was. Neither of them actually help me figure out what the supposedly already-existing prohibition actually says. I have so far not been able to find it in the code.

[nathanjw]

Well, the umbrella for this is section 7, "Permitted Uses". Paraphrasing, "any use not listed here is prohibited". The uses of "family", "dwelling unit", and descriptions of N-unit buildings as being allowed in various zones seem to spell it out. But if you really doubt the existence of this rule, I think you'd have to consult a lawyer with land-use specialties.

(Also, 410 CMR 400 has occupancy limits by square footage of units and bedrooms, but they're more generous, usually. 150 sf for the first person, 100 more for each additional, plus bedrooms have to be 70sf for one person or 50sf per person if more than one. So an apartment for five people has to have a minimum of 550sf; not terribly difficult.)

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I'm hardly an expert, but if they define "family" as a group of people who are [etc.], then 4 unrelated adults living together constitute a "four family" situation, even if they're living in one apartment, and I suspect there are a lot of buildings that aren't zoned for "four family" use.

[cos]

That doesn't seem to work. First, it wouldn't be a citywide limit if that were what it was; it'd be by zoning type, which is not what I've heard anyone say. Second, if you have a two-family house and zoning says it must not exceed two "families", then even a single extra unrelated adult in either unit puts it over the limit. I doubt zoning rules were written like that.

Plus or minus four people

[the architexturalist (from livejournal.com)]

Yes, they are rewriting, but plenty of language seems to be carried forward, especially in places (like definitions) where it seems no one had raised objections to language established in or before the 1990 code. If you work in design or real estate in Somerville, there are certainly places where the language sounds very familiar.

Zone Smart Somerville seems to have been put together by the same realtor (Neraj Tuli) who is seeking to get rid of the current 4 person limit. The provision had nothing to do (originally) with brothels but much more to do with trying to get rid of SRO and worker's boarding houses, especially in the pro-suburb/anti-urban 1980s.

The way it is supposed to work is precisely by building type. Dwelling units in areas for 'family' housing (single family, two family, triple decker, etc.) are grouped for a particular density and allowed all over the city. SRO or boarding house uses generate a much higher density, and are only allowed in a few particular places. The 4 or fewer definition applies to 'family' housing, the more than 4 definition applies to boarding houses. If you rent to more than 4 people, you are creating a de facto boarding house where one was not permitted.

ps - Cos, you're getting caught up on the difference between a two family house (a building type), a 'family' definition per Section 2.2.53, and a dwelling unit. A "two family house" has two dwelling units, and according to 2.2.53 each of those dwelling units can potentially house a definitional 'family' of up to four unrelated people per unit. That two family house would have to house a total of 9 adults to be over the limit.

RE: Plus or minus four people

[cos]

Thanks!

Based on what you say, there is in fact no current city-wide rule barring more than 4 unrelated adults from living together. There is instead what I would have imagined - zoning rules that limit houses to a number of different limits depending on what they're zoned for. Seems like some houses are limited to no more than 8, some to no more than 12, some to larger numbers, and only a relatively small set of properties have no limits.

If you're living in a house zoned for "3-family" and one unit has 2 unrelated people, another has 4, and another has 6, you're still fine, right? That it, it doesn't matter that one of the units has more than 4 unrelated people as long as the whole house is within its limit, yes?

What if you're in a house zoned for two-family and one unit has a related family of 4 adults (married couple plus the parents of one of them, say) and the other unit has 6 unrelated people, I think that would still be okay, because the largest set of unrelated adults you can make in this house is 7, which is below the limit of 8 or fewer. Am I right about that?

RE: Plus or minus four people

[the architexturalist (from livejournal.com)]

Almost, but not quite. The letter of the code (the "current city-wide rule") is pretty clear that it permits no more than four unrelated people to occupy a single dwelling unit, regardless of how many dwelling units may be included on a given property.

There are two issues here. First is the relative looseness of fit between the intent of a law and the mechanism it uses to accomplish that intent. The intent seems clearly ("For purposes of controlling residential density") to set overall limits based on type (< 8 person houses, < 12 person houses, etc.), but to do that it sets a per-dwelling-unit number as the legal standard to enforce. The mechanism to accomplish that intent is to limit occupancy of a dwelling unit to no more than four unrelated people.

The second issue is the slippage between what is permitted and what you can get away with. The folks in the 6 person unit are actually non-compliant, though it could be that they could get away with it if the neighbors were not bothered by noise, etc. enough to notice and report them (and if review weren't triggered by some other factor related to density, like someone noticing that six people were trying to register cars using the same address). Since 4 per dwelling unit is the letter of the law, the fact that there was a "gap" of two people in another unit to keep the property under the intended cap would not be legally helpful.

So, in your final example, you would not be correct. The intent is indeed to regulate overall density, but the mechanism used is to regulate the per-dwelling-unit occupancy. The 6 unrelated people are non-compliant because they are unrelated. If they were related (a married couple and both pairs of their parents, for example) no limit would apply, but there are still no more than four unrelated people permitted in a single dwelling unit.

[vonelftinhaus.livejournal.com]

So has this been part of the zoning ordinance for a long time or is this a semi recent re-structure of the code, but still not "new" in its definition? I had to basically read this over multiple times because reading quickly had me thinking a 4 bedroom rental home/apartment was not allowed no longer.

[cos]

For reference, the current Somerville zoning ordinances appear to be here:
https://www.municode.com/library/ma/somerville/codes/zoning_ordinances?nodeId=ZONING_ORD_SOMERVILLE_MASSACHUSETTS

Jinkies!

[kissoflife.livejournal.com]

This doesn't add to info re: Somerville, but you might know that such throwback ordinances were historically aimed at preventing 'houses of ill repute,' as though this is gateway to becoming a house of prostitution. I know this via the same ordinance being on North Carolina's books and not likely to budge. (we were 6 grad students in 1 house and laughed and thumbed our noses at said ordinance, naturally. )

RE: Jinkies!

[avjudge]

I believe the maximum-4-unrelated-residents rule is newish, though maybe it's the enforcement that's new. (I recall reading about Somerville getting a list of student addresses from Tufts so it could be enforced.) It's definitely aimed at student apartments, not houses of ill repute - or maybe student houses are the new houses of ill repute, in the literal (not euphemistic) sense of the phrase.

RE: Jinkies!

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

I went through the process about a dozen years ago to rezone my 2 family to a 3 (didn't work). City officials brought up the "no more than 4 unrelated persons" restriction to me more than a couple of times. It's been there for a long while, though I'm sure it's difficult to enforce (except that much of this information is provided via the city census).

I got the feeling they were more interested in the "zoned as a 2 family, used as a 3 or 4 family" issues than enforcing this one. But I've always been careful to keep my leases to 4 individuals, even though the unit could hold 5-6 bedrooms.

Re: Jinkies!

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Not quite:
http://www.lasisblog.com/2012/09/27/the-brothel-law-fact-or-fiction/

[vonelftinhaus.livejournal.com]

I'm still reading this as 4 or more (or is it starting at 5 and 4 is the maximum #) people living in a house or unit that are unrelated is not allowed. So where would this leave an owner of a multi-family home where one of the units might have 4,5 or even 6 bedrooms? So basically a 4 bedroom can only be rented out to 4 people and can only have 4 people residing there for more than say 24 hours

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

It is laid out on page 168 of the proposed zoning ordinance. "no more than four (4) unrelated persons...where tenany is either by ownership or on a month-to-month basis or longer. Uses where tenancy is arranged for time periods shorter than one month are considered Lodging uses" then you have to go to lodging section to read about that.

So yes, if you have 5 or more bedrooms, you can still have only 4 unrelated people as long term tenants. The organizer said in his testimony that he has a 6 bedroom apartment. There is some additional risk with that many people and I'd never want to be the landlord or tenant in that situation, but I don't consider it overcrowding. Also I don't know why the proposed ordinance doesn't prohibit 4 people from occupying a 1 BR.

[kelkyag]

A limit on people per room or unit area would make more sense to me than a flat limit on unrelated people. (I knew one household of ten, many years ago, though they *bought* their house, which was a lot of paperwork but turned out to be a good deal for them.)

How would more than four people who aren't all related to each other be counted under this rule? Say, three married couples, or a parent with two children and three unrelated adult housemates?

[cos]

For three married couples, the largest set of unrelated people you can make is three, so that's under the limit as I understand this kind of rule. You could search for court cases to see if something like this has been challenged and a court ruled on how to interpret it.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

A limit on people per room or unit area would make more sense to me than a flat limit on unrelated people.

There's a lot of status (and hence, housing price) based on the nature of the people living in an area. If there are a lot of communes in an area, house prices will be lower than if the houses are mostly occupied by nuclear families. The worst is if you have a place where a lot of lowish-income, relatively transient, single males live -- and there's been trouble in lots of places when some landlord realizes that the total rent from such a situation can be significantly higher than from a married couple and one and a half kids.

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

The proposed ordinance doesn't, but other rules quoted above show the minimum sq footage required per person.

[irilyth]

Is this related to the 68 Scarborough thing in Hartford? (http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-scarborough-street-controversy-1130-20141128-story.html for example)

[msiebler.livejournal.com]

I think the current drive to enforce was driven in part by this series in the globe after some deadly fires in Boston.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/specials/shadow-campus

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

That type of thinking drives me nuts.

A house with blocked fire exits is not at all the same thing as 5 adults renting a 5-bedroom house.

[yakshaver.livejournal.com]

Such provisions are commonly used by towns whose voters are uncomfortable with people who want to live as other than something from 1950s TV.

[yakshaver.livejournal.com]

I'll just add that LJ didn't show me the other comments at first. Which is why mine may come across as having beet written in a vacuum.

[anyee.livejournal.com]

Well, what is the upper limit on the number of people who can live in a single family dwelling before it becomes unsafe?

[aurewl.livejournal.com]

Does this mean all of the living coops in the city are technically illegal?

[the architexturalist (from livejournal.com)]

Currently, yes. In the new code, such housing types would be considered Group Living, as opposed to Household Living and new buildings or renovations for these would be allowed by special permit.

Make your opinion heard

[olszowka.livejournal.com]

The zoning planning commission is taking public comments on the proposed updated ordinance. Please go to https://somerville.opencomment.us/, create an account, and leave a comment regarding this issue right away. Currently, there are only 3 comments, so if everyone who commented on the page left a comment there, it would make an impression.