# Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding



## mjesse (Nov 18, 2009)

The CEO and I are going to check out an SFR this morning with a reported 16 permanent residents.

The original plans we have on file show a 4 bedroom, 2-1/2 bath home with an unfinished partial basement. I can only assume that they finished the basement without permit at some point. I will be checking for light/vent and EERO's.

Not to sure how to enforce an overcrowding issue other than IPMC 404.5.

Any experience you have had that can be shared?

Thanks,

mj


----------



## JBI (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

That'd be the one. Sewer district or on-site septic?


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

If it's a group home (congregate living facility), then it comes under the IBC, where occupant load factors (and lots of other requirements) exist.  Meeting IBC R-3 requirements is unlikely for many reasons, but at least it gives you some code to stand on.

If it's just a big family, then it's still IRC and then the IPMC is your only hope for anything to enforce.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

I was told that here in Illinois that no more than 2 unrelated families  can occupy a R occupancy.  So John Smith and his wife and five kids and Pete Donally and his wife and five kids are good to go but Greg Olson is not allowed in.

That is just what I was told by our property maintenence guru.

I was also told, "Just try and enforce an occupant load on a residence"  meaning that you can not tell someone how many children they are allowed to have.

Edit:  If the Duggers and their 18 children find a 600 sq. ft. loft apartment for $500/month, I doubt they could be stopped from moving into it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

404.5 Overcrowding.

The number of persons occupying a dwelling unit shall not create conditions that, in the opinion of the code official, *endanger* the life, health, safety or welfare of the occupants.

If you are going to use this one you better have a lot of documentation as to how you arrived at that opinion


----------



## Alias (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Check for 3' x 6' rectangles marked out on the floor.

I'm serious, there were a couple cases in the SF Bay Area where a guy had rentals, went in and taped off spaces, then rented the spaces to immigrants for sleeping.  I think that this would be an indicator that something is fishy.

Sue, living la vida loca in the land of fruits and nuts.  :roll:


----------



## Mule (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

This is a very tough one. How are you going to determine if there is a situation that "endangers the life, health, safety or welfare of the occupants."

In order to verify occupants, in Texas you need a search warrant to enter into the residence and you must have reasonable cause. Hearsay or a complaint does not work!

We always deferred complaints like that to the fire department. They are the ones who regulate occupancy loads and life, health, safety or welfare of the occupants after a CO is issued.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Alias: had one similar to that but no tape. The residents could rent different parts of the house. Renting a room was about $800/mo. while couches went for $200/mo. I think they had like 5 bedrooms and 4 or 5 couches. We did have a search warrant and found out the guy that was renting out space was buying the house on a contract from an absentee owner. It was in pretty bad shape. The guy did a bunch of work without permits and had spliced electrical wiring and open receptacles all over the house, not to mention the myriad of other violations. We ordered immediate evaucation of the building and cited the guy into court. When the absentee owners found out about it they terminated his contract.

We didn't have to wait too long for this guy to start over on another house before we could even schedule a court hearing for the first one. We got another search warrant and the police found a stolen car in his garage and a whole bunch of other stuff. Never did bring him into court for the building code violations - his prison term for the stolen goods isn't up yet!

To answer the OP, you have to get a lot of documentation. We had numerous complaints from neighbors and got written statements from previous occupants that had been evicted. We also had the police department with us. They were investigating drugs and gang activity. I actually went out with them at the same time they served their warrant, but that another story in itself.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Original complaint came from the school district. Our CEO contacted the owners, and they invited us for an inspection.

The folks were very kind when we arrived, all related- brothers, sisters, parents etc. House very well kept, clean orderly.

Basement finished many years ago, no bedroom but full bath, kitchenette, and family room area. No escape window.

1- 9-1/2'x11' bedroom and on first floor. 4 average sized bedrooms and 2 baths on second floor.

I saw no blatant code violations other than the non-permitted/non-compliant basement finish probably done over 20 years ago. I think it would be a tough sell to enforce 404.5, as I saw no immediate danger to life, health, safety or welfare.

I'm sure someone is sleeping/living in the basement, so the EERO is probably all I have to go on.

I'll report back to the Dept. heads to see where we go from here.

mj


----------



## jim baird (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

No.


----------



## pyrguy (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

I have friends that have 13 kids, all living at home. The kids are from 22 years old in college to 9 months.

They do not think it is over crowded.


----------



## JBI (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

pyrguy - Yes they do... I only have two and it felt overcrowded!  :lol:


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

I grew up in a 900 square foot house where the patio was converted into a bunkroom.  I have 5 brothers and 4 sisters.  We occasionally had orphans from a local home stay with us.  It never felt crowded.  ONE bathroom until my dad built in a half bath.  Most Americans think that every kid should have their own room.  But then any more than two kids in a family is considered abnormal.

This is America, where we do not issue search warrants without reasonable cause.  As a Fire Marshal for many years I would not touch residential overcrowding unless there was compelling evidence that did not require special means to achieve the information.  Climbing trees, looking over fences, conducting surveillance is all a very slippery slope.

My sister was a postal employee and delivered 16 W-2's to a 600 square foot house.  Considering the mail is confidential and releasing information would have violated her standing in the post office she could only turn the information over to a federal postal investigator.  The house was used by migrant workers and to them it was a mansion.  Eventually, the police responded to a disturbance and that ended the migrant house issue.

If there are too many people in a house, sooner or later the police will end up there due to tensions.  As a fire prevention officer I would not go there until called in by the police.  There is limited jurisdiction and very fuzzy regulations.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Besides, in this economy with so many people loosing their homes where are they safer?  On the street?


----------



## mjesse (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Exactly Fyr. This is strictly an American "problem"

15 years ago I built a 13,000 sf home for a couple with 2 kids.

I have family members that grew up in a 600sf apartment in China with 10 permanent residents.

mj


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding



			
				mjesse said:
			
		

> Exactly Fyr. This is strictly an American "problem"15 years ago I built a 13,000 sf home for a couple with 2 kids.
> 
> I have family members that grew up in a 600sf apartment in China with 10 permanent residents.
> 
> mj


I'm not certain which one is the bigger problem.  Too much or too little?

60 sq. ft. to me is a bit on the low side.  3250 sq. ft. seems like a bit on the high side.  If I had a choice though I am going with the 3250 sq. ft.  but I would be comfortable with about 500 - 750 sq ft per person.  Of course, I am actually right in the middle there with about 600 sq. ft. per person hoping to upgrade to the 750 sq. ft.


----------



## JBI (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

OK, all kidding aside... My first reply to this topic asked a somewhat imporatant question that has not been answered.

Is this in a sewer district or an on-site sewasge disposal system?

Regardless of personal opinions about privacy/personal space, if it is an on-site sds the water usage by too many people can (and usually does) cause a septic system overload that will lead to a failure.

Raw sewage in the yard and running onto the street or abutting properties is a valid concern, and a significant risk to health and well being of both the occupants and the neighbors/community at large.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

JD,

Municipal sewer and water system.

The Director and manager want to pursue a "s.f. per occupant" direction

The 2003 IPMC has a chart that specifies a bedroom requires 50 sf per occupant. We are using 2006...but..

At that calc. They would be allowed 13 occupants in the 5 bedrooms.

There is also a spec for an efficiency unit IPMC 404.6 that requires 320 SF for 3 occupants.

If I include the basement as an efficiency unit, full bath and kitchen w/ 330sf family room area. They could have 13 on first and second floor + 3 in the basement = 16 (which is what they have)

I don't really want to pursue this as I see no life safety concerns (excluding EERO in basement) All SD's working.

But this won't be going away. The school superintendent is looking at it as a loophole to bring more students into the district. The school is the origin of all this anyway.

mj


----------



## fatboy (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

My boss wanted me to try and enforce 404.5, when the Table was in there in 2003. Our City Attorney issued an opinion that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to PROVE overcrowding. I haven't had to deal with it.....yet.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding



> The school superintendent is looking at it as a loophole to bring more students into the district


That is just wrong. Did you inform the owners who complained :?: The kids should already be counted in the school system unless this is a home school family. If so I know an attorney's group who would be interested in this superintendents actions


----------



## mjesse (Nov 20, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

mt.,

We do have problems in the area with people falsely claiming residency to get into particular schools.

For the past few years my wife and I have had to attend a "proof of residency" event when registering our own kids for school.

I find it to be a HUGE waste of time and money, when the real effort should be made to strictly go after the violators only.

This, I think, is the motivation behind this particular case. Although I don't really see this family as a "problem"

I'm curious to learn more of what group you speak of...ACLU?

mj


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 20, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

mj

Here is one group

http://www.hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1


----------



## mjesse (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Update:

The Village will be moving forward with the complaint of overcrowding. Using the 2003 IPMC as a guide..

_404.4.1 Area for sleeping purposes. _

_Every bedroom occupied by one person shall contain at least 70 square feet (6.5 m2 ) of floor area, and every bedroom occupied by more than one person shall contain at least 50 square feet (4.6 m2 )of floor area for each occupant thereof._

We have calculated a maximum occupancy of 13, which puts them 3 over. Our first request is to ask for a "plan of compliance" with an end of month deadline.

Should be interesting. :roll:

mj


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

I'm going to go make some popcorn.

Be right back.


----------



## cboboggs (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

I'll bring the soda and the milk duds.   

Keep us posted.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

yeah, good luck with that...........glad it's not me.


----------



## peach (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Most jurisdictions won't touch this anymore... too many "extended" family situations (and some lawsuits) have made city officials rethink trying to enforce.

Going way back to when I was in Florida under SBCCI, all overcrowding provisions and maximum residents were taken out of the property maintenance and zoning code.

With 16 people group home, it's an R-4, not R-3.


----------



## mjesse (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

Just finished our meeting with the property owner.

UNCOMFORTABLE 

Senior citizen, 16 year resident of the U.S. Has finally managed to bring his entire family over from the old country.

Some adult children are out of work and looking for jobs. 8 children ages 6-18 are all in school.

We have asked for a response letter stating that the adult children are actively pursuing work, and hope to find alternate housing when they are employed :roll:

Happy holidays :twisted:


----------



## packsaddle (Dec 19, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

My recommendation for you:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 20, 2009)

Re: Residential maximum occupancy- Overcrowding

My Grandmother had 16 childern.  She lived in a two bedroom home with a coal burning Ben Franklin pot belly stove in the living room; and a coal burning cook stove in the kitchen.  The only water was from a faucet in the back yard; and there was a two-holer out back.  There was always room for company and always enough to eat.

This country is becoming the most shamefully wasteful nation in the world; and we wonder why the rest of the world hates us.  There are over 6 billion men, women and children on this planet and 99.99% of them live in worse conditions than my Grandmother did over 50 years ago; and would think her home would be a luxury.

This is the kind of regulations that prevent working people from owning a home;

"(D) Minimum Floor Area in an R-1 residence district. No dwelling may be established, erected or changed so that its floor area, exclusive of basements, terraces, unenclosed porches, and garages in square feet, is less than prescribed below:

One Story 1,200

Two Story 1,400 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)

Tri/Bi-level 1,300 (first floor minimum-1,000 square feet)"

http://www.highland.in.gov/municipalcod ... r214r1.htm

This type of regulation is in most municipalities throughout the country.

I have an Energy Code for you that will save enough energy to last for hundreds of years;

E -1.  No Single Family Residence may be constructed that is over 1,200 sq. ft.

Shame on us, one and all.

I'm tired,   

Uncle Bob


----------



## shaiman (Jan 9, 2012)

i need some help

i live in reading pa and i have little to none experience when it comes to codes but here is the situation i live with 7 people at a 5 bedroom 1 bath house and a unfinished basement i know you can't live in the basement unless its finished so that was taken care of but i was told unless blood related you cannot have more than 5 people living in a house  now 3 of us are cousins and 2 people are having a baby is there a way to get around this i find it hard to believe that its fine for a family of ten to squeeze into a four bedroom but 7 people in a spacious 5 bedroom is wrong i never even heard of this before we are doing this to save money and we get along just fine any help is appreciated please


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 9, 2012)

Who is telling you this and can they cite the code section they are enforcing?


----------



## shaiman (Jan 9, 2012)

we got ratted out by our neighbor i know we play loud music and all but the man told me from the city that we were reported for something like 16 people  i laughed and told the truth and i looked it up our house is a r-3 type i guess which is saying no more than 5 unrelated people to a house im sorry but we didn't get anything official yet


----------



## shaiman (Jan 9, 2012)

okay we were told it would come in the mail in a few days is there any loop holes? i thought 2 people having a child counts as family this whole blood related thing is ridiculous


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 9, 2012)

You need to read the actual wording of the code section cited.  Be sure to also look at the code definition of words used in that section such as "related" or "child".  An appology to the neighboor and turning down the stereo may also go a long way to resolving the issue.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree with Coud Dad, turn the stereo down, make nice with the neighbor, it could go away.

We have a local zoning ordinance that states no more than 2 unrelated people in a low density residential area. but as I said in a recent post, proving who actually "lives" there is a booger. "Move" some people out.


----------



## imhotep (Jan 9, 2012)

shaiman said:
			
		

> okay we were told it would come in the mail in a few days is there any loop holes? i thought 2 people having a child counts as family this whole blood related thing is ridiculous


Good Luck.  It is a zoning code issue.  The code is available online.

http://www.readingpa.gov/documents/Zoning.pdf

I was surprised by what I found when I pulled it up.  I presume you do not own the property.  Seems like there are a lot of hoops her.



> §27-1202. Conditions for Special Exception Uses.16. Roommate Housing Arrangements. (as defined in §27-2202, “roommate households”),
> 
> when exceeding three non-related persons living in one dwelling unit, require review
> 
> ...





> DWELLING UNIT - one or more rooms providing living facilities for one family or anindividual, used or intended to be used for sleeping, cooking, bathing and other day-today
> 
> residential activity.





> FAMILY - one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or fosterrelationship, legal custody, guardianship or written permission of a person with custody
> 
> or are the great-grandparent, great-grandchild, grandparent, grandchild, parent, child,
> 
> ...





> ROOMMATE HOUSEHOLDS - a shared housing arrangement where at least two, andno more than three persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster
> 
> relationship or are not the great-grandparent, great-grandchild, grandparent, grandchild,
> 
> ...


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 9, 2012)

Whoa nellie. That feels like a slap to the face of freedom.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 9, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Good Luck.  It is a zoning code issue.  The code is available online.http://www.readingpa.gov/documents/Zoning.pdf
> 
> I was surprised by what I found when I pulled it up.  I presume you do not own the property.  Seems like there are a lot of hoops her.


what ever happened to "brother from another mother?"


----------



## Keystone (Jan 9, 2012)

Im with gbhammer, Whoa nellie. That feels like a slap to the face of freedom.

Granted, Reading Pa. has some serious issues but when has it become within a councils ability to prohibit the types of parties in an SFD or any other structure?


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 9, 2012)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Scott Emanuel

314-361-3635 ext 27

scott@aclu-em.org

ACLU Challenges Denial of Housing Permit to Unmarried Couple in Black Jack, Missouri

ST. LOUIS, August 10, 2006  -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”

“The City of Black Jack’s behavior is both pompous and unconstitutional,” said Brenda Jones, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.  “Black Jack’s attempt to criminalize people’s choice to live together as a family has earned international ridicule for Missouri.”

Fondray Loving and Olivia Shelltrack live in a 2,300-square-foot home in Black Jack, a suburb of St. Louis, with their three children.  Because Loving is not the biological father of Shelltrack’s oldest child, the city has denied the family an occupancy permit for the home that they purchased.  The family now faces fines of up to $500 every week for living in their home without an approved occupancy permit.

Loving and Shelltrack have lived together with Shelltrack’s oldest child, 15-year-old Alexia, for 13 years.  Katarina, 10, and Fondray, Jr., 9, are the biological children of both Loving and Shelltrack.

“The government has no business saying two consenting adults cannot live with their own children,” said Tony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.   “The town rejected a proposal to change this outmoded law, so we have no choice but to go to court to protect the rights of this family.”

Emily Martin, an attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, noted that a court in North Carolina recently struck down that state’s 201-year-old ban on cohabitation in another case brought by the ACLU.  “The government is using housing laws to impose its ideas of morality on residents, but there is nothing moral about denying a home to a family,” she said.

Today’s lawsuit, Loving v. City of Black Jack, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges the ordinance as a violation of the family’s rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, as well as family status discrimination under fair housing laws. The lawsuit names the City of Black Jack and several city officials as defendants.

Attorneys for the ACLU are Rothert, Martin and Gerald P. Greiman of the law firm Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP as cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

The petition can be found online at

www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/lovingvcityofblackjack.htm


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 9, 2012)

The Black Jack City case was resolved in 2006 when the City changed the law.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 9, 2012)

Maybe another law suit will help the young lady from this OP


----------



## shaiman (Jan 10, 2012)

i have given the posts a look over and the law suit does look like a final resort apologizing to the neighbor may help although to go this far in the first place its already to late the wolfs smell blood if you get my drift but your continued help is amazing thank you very much


----------



## Mule (Jan 10, 2012)

The section posted above is for a Special Exception. I have not found anything so far that specifies that they are required to apply for a special exception.


----------



## Mule (Jan 10, 2012)

Definition of a "Family" from the web site.

FAMILY - one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster

relationship, legal custody, guardianship or written permission of a person with custody

or are the great-grandparent, great-grandchild, grandparent, grandchild, parent, child,

brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, great uncle, great aunt, great nephew, great

niece, or cousin less than to the second degree, living together as a single housekeeping

unit; or a group of not more than three unrelated persons over the age of 14 years, who

are living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household with

a single cooking facility. A roomer, boarder or lodger shall not be considered a member

of the family. Shared housing arrangements, where the individuals are permanent or

temporary “roommates,” do not constitute family arrangements. The term “family” shall

also not include the occupants of a clubhouse, hotel, motel, student home or student

housing, fraternity house, sorority house or dormitory. [Ord. 54-2008]


----------

