11 people bought a massive 9 bedroom home to live together. City says that violates zoning laws

[Liberal_in_LA]

Hartford's 11-person "family" could be forced out


The question of how you define a family is at the center of a dispute in Hartford, Connecticut. Nearly a dozen people, some of whom are not related, live together comfortably in a single-family home. But the city of Hartford says under its zoning code, that kind of living arrangement is not allowed, and they could be forced to split up, reports CBS News correspondent Anna Werner.

Hartford's historic West End neighborhood boasts stately mansions and high-profile homeowners, including the mayor and Connecticut's governor.

Just like like others, the home making headlines was purchased by a "family" who live in apparent domestic harmony -- except they're not. The group of 11 actually includes three couples, with three children and two single people. They're all longtime friends who decided years ago they wanted to live together.

----

They purchased the nine-bedroom home and moved in last August. They have a legal partnership agreement and a shared bank account to pay expenses. The group has spent $30,000 so far to repair the home which was built in 1921.

They all say it works well, but some neighbors apparently don't agree.

Someone complained to the city, which determined in October that the living arrangement violates the zoning code for the neighborhood, which specifies that although the houses may be massive, no more than two unrelated people can live in them. It came as a surprise to the group.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hartford-connecticut-11-live-in-single-family-home-could-be-forced-out/

[ND-Dem]

1. The real reason is to keep rich away from poorer

[Marr]

3. +1-- Sure seems that way.

[virgogal]

7. Where I used to live it was because of hordes of students packing into houses.

It had nothing to do with income.

[TBF]

10. I bet it would be lots of cars and that type of thing

or possibly parties if it's students.

[virgogal]

15. Parties and peeing on all of the lawns.

[ND-Dem]

18. In areas where there are hordes of students the area around the school is typically for that kind of

thing.

At least it was at both universities I attended.

But you don't typically find universities in the suburbs, around stately, high-income homes like the one pictured here.

[gollygee]

25. Hartford CT?

And this is a house from 1921, so an older part of town. Yeah there are probably universities nearby.

[ND-Dem]

49. Today, Hartford is one of the poorest cities in the nation with 3 out of every 10 families living

below the poverty line.[5]

In sharp contrast, the Hartford metropolitan area is ranked 32nd of 318 metropolitan areas in total economic production[6] and 7th out of 280 metropolitan statistical areas in per capita income.

Highlighting the socio-economic disparity between the Hartford and its suburbs, 83% of Hartford's jobs are filled by commuters from neighboring towns who earn over $80,000, while 75% of Hartford residents who commute to work in other towns earn just $40,000.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford,_Connecticut

[virgdem]

53. According to the article in the paper...

the house is situated on a street that is right around the corner from my alma mater-the University of Hartford, which is on the Hartford/West Hartford line. And there are other universities in that immediate area as well.

[JimDandy]

24. In this case it was reported

that this zoning regulation was enacted to stop boarding homes from springing up in neighborhoods. They also said that some jurisdictions with this type of zoning reg are looking into allowing this type of occupancy where the occupants are in effect fuctioning as families.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. truth. n/t

[yeoman6987]

14. Why are blue states and cities putting these friends through this?

Connecticut is blue as you can get and Hartford is deep blue. Lately we have been seeing blue areas setting really bad laws or putting pressures on working class and poor. I don't know what is going on but this week we see Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington and now this. Different situations but all of them are not Democratic ideals.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. Money, my friend, money

Can't have the riff-raff moving into the nice neighborhoods, can we?

[valerief]

28. Bingo bongo!!!! nt

[snooper2]

43. um, no not really, this is coming from an 1100sf house to 110000sf

I think there is even something in the closing docs I had to sign that stipulates this-

[aikoaiko]

2. That's a very common zoning ordinance. Im surprised the Realtor didn't say anything

[Nay]

23. exactly. I'm thinking the realtor may even be on the hook somehow for not warning

the 11 buyers.

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. Depends on real estate laws.

Here in Ala. you buy property under the "as is, where is" law, owners are not obligated to disclose things, unlike Cal.

[Phentex]

35. It does make you wonder...

you think they would have known this before they made the purchase. Maybe they did and figured no one would complain.

[hobbit709]

4. Become a church.

[elias49]

6. Ha! No kidding! nt

[TBF]

11. That's the answer in TX at any rate! nt

[pnwmom]

26. They really should look into that! n/t

[Jefferson23]

5. I wonder if they'll fight it..we have much larger McMansions in our town that are now

empty...no one is buying them. This seems really dumb and obnoxious to boot.

[RKP5637]

8. Same thing here, only 2 unrelated people can live in a house with 2 cats, or 2 dogs, or

1 cat and 1 dog. It's bullshit IMO.

[Sedona]

12. Discrimination based on familial status

is a clear violation of federal fair housing law.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_coverage.php#famil

[Travis_0004]

13. Nope

Belle Terre v. Boraas was a case where the cours ruled that those laws are legal in the interest of zoning traditional single family communties.

[ND-Dem]

21. Just because there's a court ruling doesn't mean the law isn't discriminatory. Neither does the

fact that something is legal mean it's not discriminatory.

In this case, the discrimination is again non 'single families'.

As you yourself just told us.

[merrily]

36. Many laws discriminate. The relevant issue is whether the particular type of

discrimination violates the constitution or not. I don't know about the Connecticut state constitution, but this issue has already gone to the Supreme Court and, as Travis stated, they found zoning laws like this constitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas

I can't see the current court overturning that case.

[ND-Dem]

50. Irrelevant to my point.

[bobclark86]

58. What, that's the law is illegal?

Except it isn't. Because the people in charge of saying the law is illegal or not said it's not.

[virgogal]

17. It's commonly done in areas with large student populations. Nothing illegal about it.

[kath]

30. There was a case in CA where the court ruled that such an ordinance discriminated based on familial

Status and was either unconstitutional or a violation of Federal fair housing law, or both
(Researched this a few yrs back when there was a big flap between Northwestern U and Evanston IL over such an ordinance. IIRC, the town in CA was called Santa Something)

[merrily]

37. That was under the California state constitution, not the US Constitution.

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-74-2-Brener.pdf

[mnhtnbb]

16. I live in a college town (Chapel Hill, NC) which has a no more than 4 unrelated people in a house

ordinance designed to put limits on students in houses. But the Town admits it can't enforce it
without help from landlords.

In our neighborhood some developer bought two adjacent houses several years ago--old brick
3 bedroom places on pretty large lots, knocked them down and built 6 bedroom houses. The Town
approved the building plans, because the developer lied about 2 of the bedrooms--calling them a den
and a music room--and just went ahead and rented to 6 students. The problem, is, of course,
traffic and parking. Every one of those students has a car, so where the previous houses would have
maybe 1 or 2 cars if a family lived there, now there are 6 cars per house.

I don't know what the answer is for some of the larger homes. When we lived in St. Joseph, MO, we had
a huge old house (for 4 of us). We sold it to a Mormon family with 9 kids and another one on the way.
If that family of 11--or 12--can live in a 6 or 7 bedroom house, why not a group of friends?

[ND-Dem]

20. When I was in college, few students had cars -- only one person on my dorm floor did,

as a matter of fact. That wasn't so long ago.

When we moved out of the dorm and into town housing, we walked everywhere. I went back to that town a few years ago, and I couldn't believe how much and how far we walked, routinely.

[mnhtnbb]

33. Our neighborhood is walking distance to campus. Lots of students walk

because there is very limited parking on campus. And we have fare free
buses supported by the Town and University. Yet, almost every
student in our neighborhood has a car. Most of the cars are parked
on the street because the driveways have limited space.

[Trillo]

19. Only rich people are allowed to live in places like that.

Only corporations are allowed to gather investors together for its beneficial economic advantages.

Poor people are supposed to be miserable and live lives of austerity.

[Skittles]

22. look for this to become much more common as people find themselves short of retirement funds

[mopinko]

32. my first thought, too. us old boomers

are gonna be looking at communal living arrangements.
this stuff is just stupid. there are occupancy laws. that should be enough.

[raccoon]

34. Maybe all the buyers could change their last name to the same last name and say they are sibs. nt

[fizzgig]

47. my husband and i can't even live with another married couple in our town

it's expensive to live here but most of the jobs are low-wage and we're nearly priced out of town.

we have to find some sort of balance.

[xmas74]

57. Not just for that reason

but I had thought about it a few years ago with a few friends. We were all single mothers and there was a place for rent-six bedrooms. I backed out at the last minute because I couldn't trust one of the women involved in the deal.

[madville]

27. "It came as a surprise to the group"

BS, that's a common zoning regulation in just about every city.

[pnwmom]

31. Many cities now allow "functional family" groupings. Times change

and it's time Hartford did, too.

As long as the house is reasonably sized for the group -- and this house has 9 bedrooms -- functional families like this should be legal everywhere.

[merrily]

38. Yes, such regs are common but that doesn't mean these people knew that.

In any event, it's irrelevant whether they knew about the law or not.

[pnwmom]

29. A possible loophole: they could all agree to be each other's

"domestic servants." Couldn't the parents, at least, use some help with nannies? I'm sure the "extra" adults are already functioning that way for the children, when the parents go out. All they need to do is make it official.



http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-scarborough-street-zoning-20150219-story.html

Here is one way to look at the zoning in part of Hartford's West End: The three characters from "Three's Company" could not live on Scarborough Street, but the family and servants from "Downton Abbey" could. That's because the R-8 zone prohibits more than two unrelated persons in the same dwelling but allows an unlimited number of family members and domestic servants.

[merrily]

39. The solution is that they live a lie?

[pnwmom]

56. Good grief. n/t

[Iggo]

40. It's got nine fucking bedrooms!

Eleven people in a nine bedroom house is not a lot of people.

[FSogol]

41. Some points: The sanitary line leaving that house is 4" which is too small for that many people.

In a multifamily house the line would be 6" or 8" to handle the waste.

The problem with groups such as this is that the local infrastructure including roads isn't enough to handle that many people. Here in Northern VA, it is typical for groups of Korean families to buy a house together and all live in it for 5 years, and then sell it. They add extra bathrooms, kitchenettes, electrical subpanels, exit doors, etc to property. By sharing the space and upon selling the house, they generate the money so each family has the down-payment for their own home. From the neighborhood point of view, there are now multiple cars, vans, and work trucks taking up the spaces on the entire street since the house was only designed for 2 cars.

[mercuryblues]

44. When we

Built our house we ended up with a septic system way beyond our needs. The permit required the size of the lines and tank according to the number of bedrooms, 2 people per bedroom. Not the amount of people occupying the home. The kicker was the room over the garage. Even though it is open to the downstairs the inspector said in the future, it could be converted to 2 bedrooms. So a house that had 4 people moving in has a system to accommodate 10 people.

The same would be true here. The house has 9 bedrooms, so it should have been required by code to accommodate at least 18 habitants. Even if the house was renovated and additions added on through the years. When permits were issued that would/should have been taken into account.

[FSogol]

45. Probably not. I'm not as familar with the residential code as the commerical ones,

but sanitary pipes are sized based on the type and number of bathroom fixtures (Sanitary Fixture Units) not on the number of bedrooms or expected occupants. Septic systems (going into a tank and septic field) are frequently oversized and their requirements vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction.

[fizzgig]

46. i live in a college town and it's no more than three-unrelated people in a house

it's aimed at eliminating a bunch of college students from packing in to houses, but housing is expensive here and it hurts the low income folks (lots of service sector jobs here). my husband and i can't even share a house with another married couple to reduce costs.

this particular group wouldn't be an issue if they were blood related and the house is certainly an appropriate size for the group.

[Sunlei]

52. beautiful home. That 'zoning rule' needs to be changed. I hope they win.

As times get harder many people will group in homes, just to afford a home.

Zoning laws are much to oppressive.

[RedstDem]

54. looks like its time to file some adoption papers.

Stupid law.

[TheBlackAdder]

55. 2 Unrelated People = Housekeeper & Nanny/Au Pair

I strongly surmise...

That clause about the two unrelated people are for domestic servants and residential employees.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. How many cars are parked on the street?

This is a huge problem in my neighborhood, there are a couple Chinese "families" on my street (I suspect they're mostly student boarders) that must have a dozen people living in there and just as many cars. They don't cause trouble but parking on the street is impossible.

[Javaman]

60. here's my solution...

"which determined in October that the living arrangement violates the zoning code for the neighborhood, which specifies that although the houses may be massive, no more than two unrelated people can live in them."

just adopt each other legally. fixed.