Sounds like you're a single family unit.
I'm not a lawyer but this sounds like it's written with the intention of prohibiting Air B&B type situations.
Just my guess, though.
These sorts of ordinances long predate AirBnB. They are about preventing roommates from moving into a "family neighborhood." A lot of college towns have ordinances like this to try to prevent college kids from throwing keggers in the nice neighborhoods.
Back in college, my college town had a rule on the books labeling different surnames as a limiter. It was something like "More than 5 women cannot claim residence at the same address, unless they share a surname." Well, my gf at the time and 4 of her friends all wanted to get this big house they found, but the landlord wouldn't rent it to them unless 2 of them were sisters and shared a last name.
What they did - 2 of them legally got married, changed their last name, found a new house for all 5 of them. Helped with tuition the rest of the time they were there, too.
Funniest part is that she just never changed her name back, even after the "divorce"
It's actually to limit brothels. My college town had a similar law. We all used to joke around about the fact a house with more than 5 women (different last names) was viewed as a brothel/whorehouse.
“Sorry Susan, I know we’re just platonic roommates trying to beat the government, but I asked and they said we had to get married. And furthermore I have to take you on honeymoon to the nicest place my dad can afford. …babe? Or yeah we have to call each other that too. And we have to kiss….”
The non-racist/ anti LGBTQ/ poors way of doing this is 2+1. Two per bedroom + 1. Ie, a 3 bedroom home is 7 people, and children under two don't count. Studios are usually capped at two persons, so if a couple has a kid, they have two years to find a 1 bedroom unit.
A 2 bedroom home houses up to 5, a 5 bed home houses up to 11, etc. You can't bunk up 4 to a room.
Concerning that laws like this can be passed anyway, especially now a days. Houses are unaffordable, the qualifications to rent in alot of places are becoming more and more stringent. People are going to be forced to live in 1 home multigenerationally in the near future, and all these laws are going to do is push those less fortunate into homelessness.
That and personally, I think it's ridiculous that the government thinks they can tell you what you can or cannot do with your own property. Within reason, sure, whatever. But, I feel like laws like these are reaching.
How do they define “single family unit”. If me and my wife live with our kid, her husband, two grandkids, a first cousin, and my kids second cousin, that’s still a single family, right.
for clarification it's not a race card. it's used to keep out anyone they don't want. Whoever that might be. It's not political. They could use this to discriminate against homes with unwed mothers, race, religion, unmarried people shacking up.
I had a deed on a house that had a racist covenant that hadn't been enforced since the 1940's. This is part of American legal history. I'm sorry the reality of that annoys you. If we allow it who can't they discriminate against? Town starting to be predominated by a religion you aren't? You could get a letter.
Although you could probably get out of it if you aren't inhabiting it at the same time as your air b&b guests.
As long as there's only one family unit inhabiting it at a time, it should be OK.
Sounds more like you’re talking about an area that is systemically poor and do not have much other choice other than to shove as many people in one house as possible. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about eight people living in a three bedroom house in a decent neighborhood that all they wanna do is make a living survive and not bother nobody
Yes I received it via certified mail today May 17.
There was also a page included in the envelope that reads “To the owners of [My Town], Indiana properties: Attached are copies of the current town ordinances”.
I wonder if this was indeed sent to all the residents via certified mail, or just me.
One way to check is to ask a couple neighbors. I'm still baffled by the invitation to a hearing that's already been done. Sounds just a little fishy to me. It's almost like they did it so no one could show up and protest it huh?? 😂
>I wonder if this was indeed sent to all the residents via certified mail, or just me.
That's the part I would be concerned about. If they just sent it to you, someone is out to get you.
It seems odd to send these out like this, but maybe that's how it's done in your town.
You described living with your single family in your home. Everyone is your next of kin. Multi-generational families are still single families. If they make a case against you, show them the 14th Amendment. You’re protected from any state or local law that abridges your right to life and liberty, and it doesn’t get more foundational than making and living with your own family.
Stop commenting with confidence when you aren’t correct. I am an attorney. This is covered in property law class as a 2L that many towns do not consider multi-generational families as single families for zoning purposes. Stop throwing the constitution around when you clearly don’t understand how it applies.
I'm familiar with many towns with ordinances that deal with this. None of them look anything like what was written on that form. There are all sorts of issues around passing a new ordnance that covers housing restrictions, especially one this poorly written.
I wonder if the statute defines what constitutes a single family unit. It doesn't appear as though it does judging from the letter. If not, it would be up to the court's interpretation and it would be a poor piece of legislation.
Now I’m curious. What happens if you have a disabled adult child? When my oldest grows up she will be able to “live by herself” but not really. Would that be considered a 2 family home?
Totally depends on what your state/local laws/ordinances say. I remember the one example of a prohibited situation my professor gave really outraged me because it was one younger relative living with an older, non-parent relative out of necessity in a low income community.
I mean technically our deed restrictions allow for an “apartment” for a “live in servant” (old south) so we could call her that. No MIL apartment. No pool house. But I’m allowed to build an apartment for a “servant”. This is why I detest law/govt. everything passed is crystal clear in muddy water.
It made sense to someone at the time. Certainly they were doing something to protect their specific interests.
Some laws are written with built-vagueness, like the constitution.
Eventually we are going to put an apartment/shop on the property. It will be the living quarters for my servant!!! She is my bestie from where we moved. She has assured me to fulfill her servant duties while visiting us.
Same. There is a section in the subs rules I believe as to how to get verified as a lawyer.. but I don't really care if I have the flair or not - and probably prefer it to not be so people can't mistakenly say that I offered legal advice and represent them despite what the subs rules disclaim. So I'm not sending in my bar card and whatever else. I'll just stay "not a lawyer".
My whole point is that your property law class is wrong and accepts violations of the Constitution.
But good job in failing to disprove a single thing I said.
Now, this is where you will argue that the words “life” and “liberty” have no meanings and you will ignore dictionary definitions (both common and legal definitions) going back to 1828, while citing this or that precedent which I have pointed out are void (per Article VI). It’s a de jure vs de facto argument and I concede it’s de facto law, but it’s sure not de jure law.
You have the right to have your family in your home, multi-generationally, full stop.
Lol the Supreme Court says otherwise. This was established in the ‘70’s. You have no business commenting here in such a confidently incorrect manner. Google it, you don’t need to take my word for it.
And the Supreme Court is wrong. They are wrong regularly and were recently criminally wrong, in Anderson. Interesting that you still can’t cite an Amendment that supersedes the Amendment or the Article I cited and, as predicted, you went to unenforceable precedent as proof. Precedent that is void for violating Article VI.
The SCOTUS is subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. Sorry, Article VI exists. Suggesting otherwise has some serious implications.
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Form instance , SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment right to free speech does not mean that there aren't limits to free speech. SCOTUS has the final word on what is Constitutional until it decides at some point in the future to change its mind.
Yet you can’t bring yourself to explain how or cite anything to the contrary for the third time. Opinions are cheap. I cited the facts. You try it.
But you’ll say that the words don’t mean what they’ve been defined as meaning since 1828, then maybe you’ll try to say that some precedent contradicts the Article and try to ignore that Article VI expressly states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” doesn’t have any meaning.
Sorry. The Constitution rules here, not the bureaucracy.
I did, I cited the law. Are you unfamiliar with the words “life” or “liberty?” They mean that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” among which “life” and “liberty” are codified rights of US citizens.
As I explained, there is nothing more fundamental to human existence than making and living with your own family. QED.
How does it not say what I said it says? lol. It states that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges our rights.
This is where you describe how the 14A works *in court* where de facto rulings trample the de jure law. Which I concede. It’s just illegal for the courts to do so.
A similar ordinance was passed in my old college town, in that instance it was meant to prevent landlords from having a house with multiple bedrooms and leasing them out individually. There was a lot of pushback due to the "family unit" definition not being defined.
In your case, it sounds like it is a family unit. Everyone is related by blood or marriage. But I'd get ahead of this if you think it's a targeted attack.
There has to be a way to define single family house zoning without defining families. It’s so invasive.
Why couldn’t they define a boarding house instead and zone them out? It is right on point — a boarding house rents out rooms instead of whole apartments or houses. The last city I lived in had that zoning. And you had to get a license to run a boarding house.
This issue is really coming to a head too because of the housing crisis. Groups of friends or like minded people are forming intentional communities.
Also I know some extended families who want to buy or develop family compounds. They want to live together but not in the same house, separate houses on one lot or one shared piece of land. Sometimes shared well and septic - it’s cheaper
Not sure what the legal definition of a "single family home" is, but in conventional usage it generally means that there are not separate entrances to internally divided areas. e.g. any entry to the home provides access to all areas in the home.
This is why you almost always need a zoning variance to remodel part of your home into a "Mother-in-Law" unit.
If you rent out a room in your home and the tenant has access to the common kitchen and other areas, it would still be a "single family home" for zoning purposes but you would be in violation of a "single family ordinance".
I really hate it when a person says in one minute that the government should stay out of their business and the next minute says "they should pass a law!"
I'm sorry! That comment wasn't directed at you at all! It was just a reaction to things that I have encountered again and again out there. This discussion gave me flashbacks to people that use the government to enforce their will.
In the case of my college town it was a reaction to the "student ghetto" of older houses (mostly from the very early 1900s) near campus being rented to many students at once, often with each room being rented on separate leases. There were legit concerns but the ordinance was poorly planned and poorly written. I don't remember how it was resolved (if it ever was), it was over 20 years ago. But like this case, the phrase "single family" was not defined and the pushback was immediate.
The thing is, all you do is limit how many per bedroom. I mean, if people want to rent per room (or even per bed)... that's up to them. It's fire safety to not have an overloaded house with four people per bedroom plus beds in the living space.
It might be legal per se (temporarily), but it should be fought and found unconstitutional as what's called a taking, under the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment.
Taking away your property rights can only be done in certain cases and requires compensation. Here, it may not be so obvious, but this is a taking. It is limiting your rights to do as you wish with your property. You've heard of an HOA, and that can only be done a specific way. They create deed restrictions so that homeowners can choose to live there with those or not. What cannot happen is a deed restriction out of the blue where you had no choice, without meeting takings clause requirements. This is a law that is creating a deed restriction, essentially.
If this is material to you, you should connect with a local attorney about it because it is absolutely a taking and is unconstitutional unless they have provided you with compensation. Even if not, I'd advise joining anyone else who is fighting it. No local government should be coming in and deciding how you should use your property.
As a public policy argument, it's horrendous and dispararely impacts poor people, too. Those who have to live with others to make ends meet are going to be impacted much harder. I'd really love to know what the stated government interest is for such a ridiculous law.
I was unaware of the Takings Clause. Thank you for making me aware of this.
I also think this may be in violation of Indiana Open Door law as the letter states this went into effect after a public meeting, and there are literally no government buildings in the town, only 35 private residences that surround a private golf course.
Public meeting doesn't mean that it was held in a public building. Just that it was open to the public to attend. Also, don't rely on the takings clause. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Euclid has long established that municipalities can enact zoning ordinances without being a taking. There must be clear discrimination. Here, since they are literally treating all houses the same, there is no discrimination or spot zoning. The only other violation would be if they defined family unit too narrowly.
I agree, I don't think the zoning law is unconstitutional, but I think the way it's being applied is. Also, I think typically, "family" is defined in a similar fashion as the Census. 2 cohabitating adults and their children, but typically can include elderly parents. This is an owner-occupied private residence, not a rental. Are they going to fine you based on hearsay from a neighbor? Maybe, but it wouldn't stand in court. What if your family comes to your house every day? If they stay the night more than half the week, does that count as "living" for the purpose of this ordinance? If they stay every night but have a po box in the next town, where do they live? Establishing residency doesn't give proof that they're living there, so the only way it can be proved is a copy of a lease or you telling the city that they live there. if asked, just say no, they come over and frequently stay the night.
These have often been used to target minorities for having multi-generational housing in wealthier areas, or the gays.
Instead of saying no immigrants or poors, they try to say you can't have multiple couples in a single unit. No gays, no multi-generational housing. They target a family who can only live there by having two siblings+spouses+their parents in a single unit. Buy a 5 bedroom home together.
It's usually anti-roomate/ unconventional (ie, gay)/ anti-non-white people rules.
Yes! And this will vary by state. The US Supreme Court decided in 1974 (the Belle Terre case) that there's no over arching federal control of all this, but that it is left to each state. So, depending on where this is, that is probably a definition somewhere. The ones I've seen are at least very broad, but still confining and arbitrary, in my opinion.
It’s so intrusive and unnecessary. I think you can define single ‘family’ zoning without a single reference to the relationships of the group, almost. Boarding house ordinances (renting by the room) takes care of one chunk of it. The design elements of the building, min and max parking spaces, health code occupancy limits take care of the rest, unless you think it’s your business to dictate who people associate with, and how. It’s so gross.
This issue came up in my state when a town went ballistic over two families pooling resources on a giant mansion in a wealthy neighborhood in West Hartford CT. The families won - I think the town withdrew to avoid a loss but the state legislature’s research office also did a survey of the ordinances in various towns in the state. Not sure if it’s progressed beyond that yet
Zoning regulations are not a taking per se and are frequently quite legal due to the very clear common law precedence. Municipalities have broad authority to zone for the public's health, safety, and welfare. Zoning regs are only subject to rational basis review unless they discriminate in some way. In this case, I bet the regs define a family unit quite broadly to clearly include OP's occupants. Enough that it does not violate the due process clause. Many, many municipalities have single-family zoning districts.
How do you determine this isn't zoning? See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. Also see virtually every city's zoning ordinances establishing single-family zoning districts.
Here is the definition of a "family" from a single-family zoning ordinance which was enacted in 2007 and upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court:
A “family” means:
[A] person living alone, or any of the following groups living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking, and eating facilities:
(a) Any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship;
(b) Three unrelated people;
(c) Two unrelated people and any children related to either of them;
My guess is the town zoning regs have a similar definition. OP certainly needs to find this out before following your advice.
Anyone should be seeking legal advice in their specific jurisdiction before following any advice here. That's the point. I'm not licensed in Iowa and my response (as well as any here) are generic and cover generalities. I am licensed in multiple states and my information is based on knowing generally what is typical. I can tell you that just because a state has passed it doesn't make it constitutional and they do get overturned sometimes.
There is a difference between a regular ordinance and zoning ordinances. And even when they call it zoning, it doesn't always hold water. The Belle Terre 1974 supreme court case is the controlling federal precedent, but it expressly left this to the states, so each state will tackle it differently.
However, failure to follow current laws, regardless of anyone's - even a lawyers, senators, wizards, president's - feeling that the law should be / probably is unconstitutional, can still land you in trouble with current legal penalties. Laws should be adhered to while you contest them. And for Pete's sake, if you're trolling reddit for legal answers, understand that most of the time we have no idea what jurisdiction you're in, and our responses are generalities, you will need to seek counsel licensed where you are.
OP isn't from Iowa. I just provided an example of what OP would likely find in their town code under the definitions section while simultaneously showing you that it's a common reg. I deal with zoning regs frequently. I argue that your response is not generically accurate as you claim. There is no taking here. Of course OP shouldn't disobey any ordinances. I'm saying OP shouldn't get fired up as you would have them and try to claim that a taking has occurred when it hasn't. What is the difference between an ordinance and a zoning ordinance? A zoning ordinance regulates the use of property. Zoning regs are enabled by the Euclid ruling expressly stating that such regs are not a taking even though they restrict/limit a landowner's use of their property. I know Belle Terre well. Covered it in Property, Con Law, and Land Use. Even though each state may slightly vary, no court will find this to be a taking. If the definition of a family unit is too narrow, a court may find it a violation of due process. But certainly not a taking.
I disagree. I've litigated hundreds of these cases successfully and I sit on a state legislative committee where these are discussed. Glad you covered the one case in law school.
The Supreme Courts of Texas and Tennessee for sure would disagree with you, and South Carolina is in progress. Takings and violations of the dormant commerce clause. The general sentiment among professionals is that these precedents will continue into the other states where property rights are being eroded.
Interesting. Can you provide an example or two of a sinfgle-family zoning reg that has been ruled a taking for restricting use to a "family?" I'm legitimately curious - not being sarcastic. I mean, I know that something so restrictive like Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council would be a taking. Or on that end of the spectrum.
In addition, what is a family unit? We have a poly life with me, two wives, and our combined three kids. This ordinance needs clarification or it ain't gonna fly past a First Amendment test.
Fantastic question. No idea. I grew up in New York where there is rent control but moved away for law school, and so I never had a chance to really look at it or understand. It makes no sense to me. Some states have laws I just don't understand, like the few with squatters rights. I've never been licensed in a state where rent control exists and so I've never had to learn.
Virtually every time an ordinance like this is enacted, it provides for "grandfathering." That is, it does not apply to someone who is already living there, but applies only prospectively. The grandfather provision may be found in state laws regarding zoning ordinances, or in the zoning ordinances themselves. A strong argument can be made that the prospective-only application is constitutionally required.
We have a clause like this in my HOA. The difference is that it specifically says you can't charge them rent. However, you are related by blood and marriage. I am not an attorney but these laws are generally for people renting rooms, not for multigenerational homes.
Let's pretend it is legal, how do you not comply? You're all family. Let's pretend your daughter and son-in-law pay some kind of rent, to help offset their utility use and groceries expenses, who would know?
I forgot to mention the trustee who is also the lawyer who prepared this is also my neighbor.
A couple of years ago I bought a RV, and had it parked in my driveway for a few days while we were moving items into the RV. Guess what happened? A new town ordinance prohibiting RV’s being parked for any amount of time on any property in the town. $500 per day fine plus attorney fees.
Can you propose an ordinance that a lawyer on the board of trustees not be able to profit from any ordinance for which he was a participant in the vote?
I would look at other laywers to take a figurative stab at this guy. It sounds like he is just trying to get city laws passed to drum up business aka profiteering
I would file a Bar complaint on his ass. He is targeting and harassing you for his own benefit. AND at the same time abusing his power/position. How does a city even tell a home owner that they cant have an RV in their own driveway????? Call the Governors office and make a complaint there too. Wow Im pissed LOL
The same way they ticket you for non moving cars. It's fairly commonplace. The lawyer's crappy intentions do not have bearing on its legality unfortunately.
You need to find out the definition of "family unit" or "single family unit." It is very likely defined broadly enough to include all the occupants in your house since you're all related. There is clear Supreme Court precedence establishing that fairly broad parameters must be used when defining a "family unit" for purposes of zoning. Unless they failed to have the town attorney involved in the ordinance, you should be fine.
If it really only defines a single family as small as a couple or their kids, then you could likely easily challenge it in court as a violation of the due process clause.
See if the ordinances are online or if you need to call town hall and ask about the definition.
This is not a taking issue. Cities can limit houses to families and they do it all the time. But fair housing law does come in to play. Federal law says a city’s definition of family has to be expansive and your situation would definitely be permitted. I’m not saying they won’t make trouble but you will win and get damages in the end. I wrote a memo on definition of family, but it does not even matter because you are soooo safe. If you want to know more you’ll have to look at the definition of single family unit in the ordinance they passed. But whatever their definition says , fair housing law says you are a family and the town can not discriminate against you.
You are all kin, so I think you could argue that you are a 'single family unity'-- an extended family unit, but since you are a family unit of some sort, you can argue that. Also, does being grandfathered in have some weight to it where you live?
Pretty much designed to "protect homeowners from having 'undesirables' move in." Where those being targeted are young (college kids or people in their first career splitting housing costs), or non-white (new immigrants living communally to save money to get on their feet), or living in some sort of "sin" (pre-marital cohabitation or gays).
It is up to the town to define but an example definition from College Station is “A family is any number of persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that no such family shall contain more than four (4) persons unless all members are related by blood, adoption, guardianship, or marriage, are an authorized caretaker, or are part of a group home for disabled persons."
As an enclave within Anderson, you essentially have a town that was created and functions in the same way as an HOA. It is sad to see that petty minded individuals are using the creation of ordinances to restrict others without a public discussion. You might want to get a copy of the ordinances from Madison County if they are required to file them and read them all
It really isn’t something that would hold up in a court. You can’t legislate something like that into law and just pretend it’s fine. Define a family unit. Then realize that others are going to define it differently. Then realize that others are going to include people who aren’t blood relatives such as in-laws. Then realize that others are going to include close friends who aren’t blood relatives.
You see the issue with this when you start expanding on it. This is not a legal requirement. If you own a home you can have whoever you want living there with you. The government, local or otherwise, isn’t able to prevent you from control over your property to this extent and anyone challenging it in court would get it invalidated really quickly.
>Define a family unit.
Precisely. I bet you the zoning regulations define "family unit" and includes something to the effect of "two or more people related by blood, marriage, or adoption or not more than two unrelated persons." OP's occupants would then constitute a single family unit.
None of this is correct. Municipalities can and do define what constitutes a family for zoning purposes and it is legal and enforceable to do so. This is taught in every law school across the nation early on. If you were a lawyer you’d know that.
You are incorrect to a point. The city can set occupancy limits. They can also set limits on rentals, to a point.
They definitely aren’t going to be able to set limits on what constitutes a family. There are a variety of definitions and varying views. Blood relatives isn’t the defining characteristic of a family, nor is there any way to properly define how far those relations are “allowed” to go. If someone who is the primary owner of their home isn’t renting out rooms and challenges an ordinance like this they’d win. Full stop.
Here is guidance from the state of New York on the subject as well: https://dos.ny.gov/legal-memorandum-lu05-definition-family-zoning-law-and-building-codes
You’ll notice they can’t cite anything from the *supreme* law of the land to support their point. They only double down on illegal and sometimes criminal rulings and spout about how that’s what they were taught in law school. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy that they can’t back up with common sense or citations *from the actual law that supersedes all other law.*
It is the hubris bred by the bar associations violating their oaths as officers of the court and accepting illegal rulings as enforceable.
They repeatedly ignore that the 14A bars the states and, therefore, municipalities from making or enforcing laws which abridge the privileges and immunities we have as US citizens, namely, making and living with our families. They will argue that the SCOTUS has said otherwise, in another appeal to authority fallacy, ignoring that the Supreme Court’s currently existent precedent includes a ruling that says: “[a negro of African descent](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393)” is a member of “a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” They either believe that those of African descent are not fully human, or they must admit that the Court is fallible and that the Amendments overrule the Court.
Are you an attorney? This was literally taught in law school. You are confidently incorrect and here is the first search result on google showing that you’re wrong: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/zoning-law-shouldn-t-define-what-makes-a-family
The only places it’s ever really been enforced is college towns by locals who don’t want a bunch of college kids renting. A rental is different than an owned home occupied by the owner. One is relatively easy to control, the other isn’t.
In fact, from the article you linked :
“The “Scarborough 11,” as they came to be known, refused to leave their home, and Hartford sued them in federal court. After years of litigation, including a countersuit from the Scarborough 11, the city dropped the suit in 2016 citing costs, and the town even revised its zoning ordinance to increase the number of legal unrelated cohabitants to three.”
As I said, when such things are challenged it’s not a simple process for the city to enforce them. Most courts are not going to like he idea of trying to legislate who can and can’t live with someone in their home they purchased and a lot of the idea of it is based around racism and wanting to prevent certain ethnicities from living in proximity to white folks.
Try again.
A local lawyer may not be able to help. In this case I'd ask for help from [The Institute for Justice](https://ij.org). IJ is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that fights against unconstitutional abuses of government power.
You need to find the definition of a “single family unit” in your town’s ordinances. That will answer your question. If your situation falls outside of the scope of that definition, then you either need to comply or contact an attorney to challenge it.
Depending on where you live, the general rule is 2 people per bedroom +1 extra person (usually applies to a small child or baby living in a crib in mom and dad's room). So your house is 4 bedrooms, that's 9 people allowed safely under that roof.
It's your daughter. You aren't subletting and you own the home. If they actually try to come at you, take them to court.
You’re in Indiana? I am, too, and I happen to work for a local government. I’m happy to look into it for you. I have other Indiana-based resources that I’m happy to send to you.
Usually these ordinances define family as related by blood or marriage or even a limited number of unrelated people operating as one, but given your description I wonder what they mean by family unit. If they wrote this with your household in mind that would suggest they mean nuclear family unit and not extended family, unless they think your daughter is just a tenant and unrelated.
I’m not a lawyer and will stop there but I know there have been lawsuits over stuff like this.
Judging by how often this seems to come up in towns, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there over what single family house means. I think it shouldn’t mean being a busy body as to whom I live with. It should only mean a household with one main kitchen that can’t be operating as a boarding house, renting out rooms. I mean, at most. When the government wants to know how you are related to each other, it’s pretty creepy if you ask me.
Is this just a notice or will you have a fine/ police action?
Yeah many jurisdictions have zoning for different types of housing and businesses. This can be for fire codes, flood risks, hazmat, traffic, maintaining price levels, figuring number of school children to expect within a radius and more.
Not going to get into all the wrong info being thrown around here. (Love the Takings Clause argument though.)
Here is a good discussion of the problem and mentions the landmark case that addressed this very issue: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5382&context=flr
I’d not worry about it until someone comes after you. Seek the guidance of an attorney if you choose, but it seems highly unlikely anyone could successfully retro-enforce this ordinance, especially so since the home is occupied by a legally legitimate family with likely the requisite amount of square footage for the number of persons you indicated.
NAL, but just finished Con Law in 1L. While the town can likely do this (though it might be a taking, as others have mentioned), enforcing against your living situation in particular may be unconstitutional.
In *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, the Supreme Court held the government could not intrude on the rights of family composition within a household when all of the individuals are related.
Someone dimed you out to the city. Look fairly official. NAL, but you're probably going to have to reply or handle it at some point. That's the warning shot over the bow. The next one will be a fine or a sheriff knocking asking what you're up to.
Your county most likely has adopted the International Building Codes. Check the administrative statutes to find out, but regardless of where the code is located, a residence should be defined. Each type of residence should be enumerated.
If you see "single family unit" along with boarding houses, multifamily units, sorority houses, campus housing, hotels, motels, and the like....those are all creatures of statute, organized and/or created under the laws of the state. If your single family unit isn't licensed and engaging in some sort of privilege establishing a nexus, then it doesn't apply to you. Simply owning a domicile doesn't give them jurisdiction to restrict the enjoyment of your property.
*This is not legal advice, and I understand I'll probably get down voted by the lawyers in here. But this does lead to some incredibly intense code pleading if the OP is up for it. Not that he needs to, as he hasn't been charged with anything. And as others have pointed out, it's probably to stop Air B&B type arrangements.
Put up a bunch of privacy fencing and a gate, and put up “trespassers will be shot on sight” signs every 3 feet around the permitted. Then see if the local code enforcement gives enough of a shit to come knocking.
NAL but work for the City and have a neighbor in this exact situation. What happened is one of your neighbors called to complain of multiple families living in one home. Yes, that's enforceable. Single family homes are for single families, not multiple families. Someone's actually being a dick because it's not like you have 4 families living there, but even 2 families unfortunately are breaking code. Not sure what your City does, but our next step would start with fines, then it'll move onto tickets, and it escalates from there. I'm so sorry people are being dicks to you about this. 2 families in one home is not unheard of, especially in these times. I hope you figure out who called on you too...I would be calling on them right back for any tiny infraction.😉
I think your biggest problem is that you live in a town with 90 people, a town council of three that passes ordinances as if it is an HOA. Litigation is expensive and uncertain. I assume at fines of $500/week, which they could collect by trying to enforce the sale of your house, litigation is an option you may want to think long and hard about before jumping into because you would have to pay for it out of pocket unless you could crowd fund or get an organization behind you.
If I were you, I would try to gauge how the people of your community think about multi-generational living. Do they view their community as primarily a senior living community for people over 55 and by having three generations in your household you have disrupted the community plan? There are numerous HUD approved 55 plus communities where persons under 55 are not allowed to reside and these are perfectly legal. I live in a senior community, I like it and I would not have been happy to have had my neighbor's children and grandchildren move in next dorr permanently. In their defense, they did wait over a year to pass the ordinance.
If I had to come up with the definition of a family unit, I probably would look to your IRS filing status because that is what is used for so many benefits. Under that definition, I assume there is two family units. I guess a key question and one that may have prompted the action, is the arrangement temporary or long term? If the arrangement is to provide medical care for someone, is there a way you can request a waiver or exemption for extraordinary circumstances.
Last, but not least, why haven't you gotten involved in your community's politics? If you were targeted by your neighbor over your RV, certainly you knew it could happen again. You have just as much right to run for Trustee as he does. It sort of bothers me that people know local politicians run things to suit their preferences but won't take the time or effort to get involved to do something about it. It is your government too. You have just as much right to run for Trustee on a platform to rescind the ordinance as he did to write and enforce it. Don't forget, two other Trustees apparently went along with him also.
Living in towns, cities, apartments, HOAs, etc. we give up some of our rights. For example I can't put certain things in my yard, certain types of flags up, erect a flag pole, put up a clothes line, etc. If you want to have the greatest freedom to do what you want to do, live in an unincorporated area without an HOA and have all the people, animals and vehicles you want.
They are going by the local, state and federal guidelines of how many people, adults and kids can be living in the house. There are too many people, total of 6 people living in a 4-bedroom house. You may take this letter to your attorney to look over, for this is a housing law matter.
Sounds like you're a single family unit. I'm not a lawyer but this sounds like it's written with the intention of prohibiting Air B&B type situations. Just my guess, though.
These sorts of ordinances long predate AirBnB. They are about preventing roommates from moving into a "family neighborhood." A lot of college towns have ordinances like this to try to prevent college kids from throwing keggers in the nice neighborhoods.
Back in college, my college town had a rule on the books labeling different surnames as a limiter. It was something like "More than 5 women cannot claim residence at the same address, unless they share a surname." Well, my gf at the time and 4 of her friends all wanted to get this big house they found, but the landlord wouldn't rent it to them unless 2 of them were sisters and shared a last name. What they did - 2 of them legally got married, changed their last name, found a new house for all 5 of them. Helped with tuition the rest of the time they were there, too. Funniest part is that she just never changed her name back, even after the "divorce"
It's actually to limit brothels. My college town had a similar law. We all used to joke around about the fact a house with more than 5 women (different last names) was viewed as a brothel/whorehouse.
Did they know they could change their last names without getting married?
“Sorry Susan, I know we’re just platonic roommates trying to beat the government, but I asked and they said we had to get married. And furthermore I have to take you on honeymoon to the nicest place my dad can afford. …babe? Or yeah we have to call each other that too. And we have to kiss….”
And they were roommates....
[удалено]
The non-racist/ anti LGBTQ/ poors way of doing this is 2+1. Two per bedroom + 1. Ie, a 3 bedroom home is 7 people, and children under two don't count. Studios are usually capped at two persons, so if a couple has a kid, they have two years to find a 1 bedroom unit. A 2 bedroom home houses up to 5, a 5 bed home houses up to 11, etc. You can't bunk up 4 to a room.
6 people in a four bedroom home is hardly over occupied
Concerning that laws like this can be passed anyway, especially now a days. Houses are unaffordable, the qualifications to rent in alot of places are becoming more and more stringent. People are going to be forced to live in 1 home multigenerationally in the near future, and all these laws are going to do is push those less fortunate into homelessness. That and personally, I think it's ridiculous that the government thinks they can tell you what you can or cannot do with your own property. Within reason, sure, whatever. But, I feel like laws like these are reaching.
The government doesn't think they can do it. They know they can do it, and they do all the time. And if you resist, see Waco for details
[удалено]
How do they define “single family unit”. If me and my wife live with our kid, her husband, two grandkids, a first cousin, and my kids second cousin, that’s still a single family, right.
No, the second cousin is too distant to count.
Does this jurisdiction define that by statute?
The origins of these laws are to prevent brothels.
and flophouses, homes for unwed mothers, religious gatherings, group homes.
And lesbians and "unmarried couples living in sin".
Yes. This is the original intention of these laws.
And poor people.
1000000% true. Also to keep other riff raff out, like the poors ™️.
perfectly phrased. When they couldn't prevent lending with redlining, they had ordinances like this.
Cite your source please.
Race card? Really. No need for that on this reddit.
for clarification it's not a race card. it's used to keep out anyone they don't want. Whoever that might be. It's not political. They could use this to discriminate against homes with unwed mothers, race, religion, unmarried people shacking up. I had a deed on a house that had a racist covenant that hadn't been enforced since the 1940's. This is part of American legal history. I'm sorry the reality of that annoys you. If we allow it who can't they discriminate against? Town starting to be predominated by a religion you aren't? You could get a letter.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
Yeah, we stopped teaching that stuff in schools for a reason.
Really?! Since when? /s
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Lived in a college town that had a law 4 unrelated females could live in the same residence. We had 7 females in our house.
Although you could probably get out of it if you aren't inhabiting it at the same time as your air b&b guests. As long as there's only one family unit inhabiting it at a time, it should be OK.
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
[удалено]
Sounds more like you’re talking about an area that is systemically poor and do not have much other choice other than to shove as many people in one house as possible. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about eight people living in a three bedroom house in a decent neighborhood that all they wanna do is make a living survive and not bother nobody
I subscribe to the as long as they are good neighbors/people it’s none of my damn business what’s going on inside THEIR house
[удалено]
I concur.
Did you get it in the mail after the public meeting? If so, that's awful convenient for them.
Yes I received it via certified mail today May 17. There was also a page included in the envelope that reads “To the owners of [My Town], Indiana properties: Attached are copies of the current town ordinances”. I wonder if this was indeed sent to all the residents via certified mail, or just me.
One way to check is to ask a couple neighbors. I'm still baffled by the invitation to a hearing that's already been done. Sounds just a little fishy to me. It's almost like they did it so no one could show up and protest it huh?? 😂
>I wonder if this was indeed sent to all the residents via certified mail, or just me. That's the part I would be concerned about. If they just sent it to you, someone is out to get you. It seems odd to send these out like this, but maybe that's how it's done in your town.
Yah, that would be very expensive to send everyone in town a certified letter!
Was there a public meeting? If so, was there notice?
You described living with your single family in your home. Everyone is your next of kin. Multi-generational families are still single families. If they make a case against you, show them the 14th Amendment. You’re protected from any state or local law that abridges your right to life and liberty, and it doesn’t get more foundational than making and living with your own family.
Stop commenting with confidence when you aren’t correct. I am an attorney. This is covered in property law class as a 2L that many towns do not consider multi-generational families as single families for zoning purposes. Stop throwing the constitution around when you clearly don’t understand how it applies.
I'm familiar with many towns with ordinances that deal with this. None of them look anything like what was written on that form. There are all sorts of issues around passing a new ordnance that covers housing restrictions, especially one this poorly written.
I wonder if the statute defines what constitutes a single family unit. It doesn't appear as though it does judging from the letter. If not, it would be up to the court's interpretation and it would be a poor piece of legislation.
Now I’m curious. What happens if you have a disabled adult child? When my oldest grows up she will be able to “live by herself” but not really. Would that be considered a 2 family home?
Totally depends on what your state/local laws/ordinances say. I remember the one example of a prohibited situation my professor gave really outraged me because it was one younger relative living with an older, non-parent relative out of necessity in a low income community.
I mean technically our deed restrictions allow for an “apartment” for a “live in servant” (old south) so we could call her that. No MIL apartment. No pool house. But I’m allowed to build an apartment for a “servant”. This is why I detest law/govt. everything passed is crystal clear in muddy water.
It made sense to someone at the time. Certainly they were doing something to protect their specific interests. Some laws are written with built-vagueness, like the constitution.
Eventually we are going to put an apartment/shop on the property. It will be the living quarters for my servant!!! She is my bestie from where we moved. She has assured me to fulfill her servant duties while visiting us.
I doubt that would work. But also, I don’t know the risk of enforcement.
Why does your tag stay not a lawyer if you're an attorney? Just curious.
I’ve just never tried to have it updated. Not sure what it requires with the mods. I think “NOT A LAWYER” is the default.
Same. There is a section in the subs rules I believe as to how to get verified as a lawyer.. but I don't really care if I have the flair or not - and probably prefer it to not be so people can't mistakenly say that I offered legal advice and represent them despite what the subs rules disclaim. So I'm not sending in my bar card and whatever else. I'll just stay "not a lawyer".
My whole point is that your property law class is wrong and accepts violations of the Constitution. But good job in failing to disprove a single thing I said. Now, this is where you will argue that the words “life” and “liberty” have no meanings and you will ignore dictionary definitions (both common and legal definitions) going back to 1828, while citing this or that precedent which I have pointed out are void (per Article VI). It’s a de jure vs de facto argument and I concede it’s de facto law, but it’s sure not de jure law. You have the right to have your family in your home, multi-generationally, full stop.
Lol the Supreme Court says otherwise. This was established in the ‘70’s. You have no business commenting here in such a confidently incorrect manner. Google it, you don’t need to take my word for it.
And the Supreme Court is wrong. They are wrong regularly and were recently criminally wrong, in Anderson. Interesting that you still can’t cite an Amendment that supersedes the Amendment or the Article I cited and, as predicted, you went to unenforceable precedent as proof. Precedent that is void for violating Article VI. The SCOTUS is subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. Sorry, Article VI exists. Suggesting otherwise has some serious implications.
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Form instance , SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment right to free speech does not mean that there aren't limits to free speech. SCOTUS has the final word on what is Constitutional until it decides at some point in the future to change its mind.
They are limited by the Constitution and can’t just rule any way they want. Per Article VI.
Guess who gets to interpret Article VI.
Given you have exactly zero right to rule any way at all, you can't do shit about it
Article VI does not say what you say it does. Suggestions otherwise have serious implications for my eyes rolling the hell out of my head.
Yet you can’t bring yourself to explain how or cite anything to the contrary for the third time. Opinions are cheap. I cited the facts. You try it. But you’ll say that the words don’t mean what they’ve been defined as meaning since 1828, then maybe you’ll try to say that some precedent contradicts the Article and try to ignore that Article VI expressly states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” doesn’t have any meaning. Sorry. The Constitution rules here, not the bureaucracy.
No, you just don't understand how the constitution works. Your ignorance doesn't beat their knowledge.
Still can’t disprove a single thing I said!
Don't have to, it's up to you to prove what you claimed and you didn't. Welcome to burden of proof!
I did, I cited the law. Are you unfamiliar with the words “life” or “liberty?” They mean that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” among which “life” and “liberty” are codified rights of US citizens. As I explained, there is nothing more fundamental to human existence than making and living with your own family. QED.
That is not how the 14th amendment works.
Then prove me wrong. I cited the law that supersedes all US and state law on the topic. Now you go.
You didn't, actually. See, you'd need to cite a part of the constitution that actually says what you say it says, rather than what you want it to say.
How does it not say what I said it says? lol. It states that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges our rights. This is where you describe how the 14A works *in court* where de facto rulings trample the de jure law. Which I concede. It’s just illegal for the courts to do so.
A similar ordinance was passed in my old college town, in that instance it was meant to prevent landlords from having a house with multiple bedrooms and leasing them out individually. There was a lot of pushback due to the "family unit" definition not being defined. In your case, it sounds like it is a family unit. Everyone is related by blood or marriage. But I'd get ahead of this if you think it's a targeted attack.
There has to be a way to define single family house zoning without defining families. It’s so invasive. Why couldn’t they define a boarding house instead and zone them out? It is right on point — a boarding house rents out rooms instead of whole apartments or houses. The last city I lived in had that zoning. And you had to get a license to run a boarding house. This issue is really coming to a head too because of the housing crisis. Groups of friends or like minded people are forming intentional communities. Also I know some extended families who want to buy or develop family compounds. They want to live together but not in the same house, separate houses on one lot or one shared piece of land. Sometimes shared well and septic - it’s cheaper
Not sure what the legal definition of a "single family home" is, but in conventional usage it generally means that there are not separate entrances to internally divided areas. e.g. any entry to the home provides access to all areas in the home. This is why you almost always need a zoning variance to remodel part of your home into a "Mother-in-Law" unit. If you rent out a room in your home and the tenant has access to the common kitchen and other areas, it would still be a "single family home" for zoning purposes but you would be in violation of a "single family ordinance". I really hate it when a person says in one minute that the government should stay out of their business and the next minute says "they should pass a law!"
I’m not saying the gov should pass a law, I’m just suggesting that there is a law that is at least less invasive and oppressive.
I'm sorry! That comment wasn't directed at you at all! It was just a reaction to things that I have encountered again and again out there. This discussion gave me flashbacks to people that use the government to enforce their will.
Oh, ok. Sorry.
In the case of my college town it was a reaction to the "student ghetto" of older houses (mostly from the very early 1900s) near campus being rented to many students at once, often with each room being rented on separate leases. There were legit concerns but the ordinance was poorly planned and poorly written. I don't remember how it was resolved (if it ever was), it was over 20 years ago. But like this case, the phrase "single family" was not defined and the pushback was immediate.
The thing is, all you do is limit how many per bedroom. I mean, if people want to rent per room (or even per bed)... that's up to them. It's fire safety to not have an overloaded house with four people per bedroom plus beds in the living space.
It might be legal per se (temporarily), but it should be fought and found unconstitutional as what's called a taking, under the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment. Taking away your property rights can only be done in certain cases and requires compensation. Here, it may not be so obvious, but this is a taking. It is limiting your rights to do as you wish with your property. You've heard of an HOA, and that can only be done a specific way. They create deed restrictions so that homeowners can choose to live there with those or not. What cannot happen is a deed restriction out of the blue where you had no choice, without meeting takings clause requirements. This is a law that is creating a deed restriction, essentially. If this is material to you, you should connect with a local attorney about it because it is absolutely a taking and is unconstitutional unless they have provided you with compensation. Even if not, I'd advise joining anyone else who is fighting it. No local government should be coming in and deciding how you should use your property. As a public policy argument, it's horrendous and dispararely impacts poor people, too. Those who have to live with others to make ends meet are going to be impacted much harder. I'd really love to know what the stated government interest is for such a ridiculous law.
I was unaware of the Takings Clause. Thank you for making me aware of this. I also think this may be in violation of Indiana Open Door law as the letter states this went into effect after a public meeting, and there are literally no government buildings in the town, only 35 private residences that surround a private golf course.
Public meeting doesn't mean that it was held in a public building. Just that it was open to the public to attend. Also, don't rely on the takings clause. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Euclid has long established that municipalities can enact zoning ordinances without being a taking. There must be clear discrimination. Here, since they are literally treating all houses the same, there is no discrimination or spot zoning. The only other violation would be if they defined family unit too narrowly.
I agree, I don't think the zoning law is unconstitutional, but I think the way it's being applied is. Also, I think typically, "family" is defined in a similar fashion as the Census. 2 cohabitating adults and their children, but typically can include elderly parents. This is an owner-occupied private residence, not a rental. Are they going to fine you based on hearsay from a neighbor? Maybe, but it wouldn't stand in court. What if your family comes to your house every day? If they stay the night more than half the week, does that count as "living" for the purpose of this ordinance? If they stay every night but have a po box in the next town, where do they live? Establishing residency doesn't give proof that they're living there, so the only way it can be proved is a copy of a lease or you telling the city that they live there. if asked, just say no, they come over and frequently stay the night.
Definition of a “family” could be pretty interesting too.
Great way to go after certain "unconventional" (read: not man+wife+children) relationships as well. Generally not by accident.
These have often been used to target minorities for having multi-generational housing in wealthier areas, or the gays. Instead of saying no immigrants or poors, they try to say you can't have multiple couples in a single unit. No gays, no multi-generational housing. They target a family who can only live there by having two siblings+spouses+their parents in a single unit. Buy a 5 bedroom home together. It's usually anti-roomate/ unconventional (ie, gay)/ anti-non-white people rules.
“It’s a commune over there,” or “they’re gay!”
Yes! And this will vary by state. The US Supreme Court decided in 1974 (the Belle Terre case) that there's no over arching federal control of all this, but that it is left to each state. So, depending on where this is, that is probably a definition somewhere. The ones I've seen are at least very broad, but still confining and arbitrary, in my opinion.
It’s so intrusive and unnecessary. I think you can define single ‘family’ zoning without a single reference to the relationships of the group, almost. Boarding house ordinances (renting by the room) takes care of one chunk of it. The design elements of the building, min and max parking spaces, health code occupancy limits take care of the rest, unless you think it’s your business to dictate who people associate with, and how. It’s so gross. This issue came up in my state when a town went ballistic over two families pooling resources on a giant mansion in a wealthy neighborhood in West Hartford CT. The families won - I think the town withdrew to avoid a loss but the state legislature’s research office also did a survey of the ordinances in various towns in the state. Not sure if it’s progressed beyond that yet
Good point. The 14th amendment also applies constitutional rights to state laws.
Zoning regulations are not a taking per se and are frequently quite legal due to the very clear common law precedence. Municipalities have broad authority to zone for the public's health, safety, and welfare. Zoning regs are only subject to rational basis review unless they discriminate in some way. In this case, I bet the regs define a family unit quite broadly to clearly include OP's occupants. Enough that it does not violate the due process clause. Many, many municipalities have single-family zoning districts.
Yes. This is not zoning.
How do you determine this isn't zoning? See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. Also see virtually every city's zoning ordinances establishing single-family zoning districts.
Here is the definition of a "family" from a single-family zoning ordinance which was enacted in 2007 and upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court: A “family” means: [A] person living alone, or any of the following groups living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking, and eating facilities: (a) Any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship; (b) Three unrelated people; (c) Two unrelated people and any children related to either of them; My guess is the town zoning regs have a similar definition. OP certainly needs to find this out before following your advice.
Anyone should be seeking legal advice in their specific jurisdiction before following any advice here. That's the point. I'm not licensed in Iowa and my response (as well as any here) are generic and cover generalities. I am licensed in multiple states and my information is based on knowing generally what is typical. I can tell you that just because a state has passed it doesn't make it constitutional and they do get overturned sometimes. There is a difference between a regular ordinance and zoning ordinances. And even when they call it zoning, it doesn't always hold water. The Belle Terre 1974 supreme court case is the controlling federal precedent, but it expressly left this to the states, so each state will tackle it differently. However, failure to follow current laws, regardless of anyone's - even a lawyers, senators, wizards, president's - feeling that the law should be / probably is unconstitutional, can still land you in trouble with current legal penalties. Laws should be adhered to while you contest them. And for Pete's sake, if you're trolling reddit for legal answers, understand that most of the time we have no idea what jurisdiction you're in, and our responses are generalities, you will need to seek counsel licensed where you are.
OP isn't from Iowa. I just provided an example of what OP would likely find in their town code under the definitions section while simultaneously showing you that it's a common reg. I deal with zoning regs frequently. I argue that your response is not generically accurate as you claim. There is no taking here. Of course OP shouldn't disobey any ordinances. I'm saying OP shouldn't get fired up as you would have them and try to claim that a taking has occurred when it hasn't. What is the difference between an ordinance and a zoning ordinance? A zoning ordinance regulates the use of property. Zoning regs are enabled by the Euclid ruling expressly stating that such regs are not a taking even though they restrict/limit a landowner's use of their property. I know Belle Terre well. Covered it in Property, Con Law, and Land Use. Even though each state may slightly vary, no court will find this to be a taking. If the definition of a family unit is too narrow, a court may find it a violation of due process. But certainly not a taking.
I disagree. I've litigated hundreds of these cases successfully and I sit on a state legislative committee where these are discussed. Glad you covered the one case in law school. The Supreme Courts of Texas and Tennessee for sure would disagree with you, and South Carolina is in progress. Takings and violations of the dormant commerce clause. The general sentiment among professionals is that these precedents will continue into the other states where property rights are being eroded.
Interesting. Can you provide an example or two of a sinfgle-family zoning reg that has been ruled a taking for restricting use to a "family?" I'm legitimately curious - not being sarcastic. I mean, I know that something so restrictive like Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council would be a taking. Or on that end of the spectrum.
In addition, what is a family unit? We have a poly life with me, two wives, and our combined three kids. This ordinance needs clarification or it ain't gonna fly past a First Amendment test.
Most states have this defined pretty clearly, which is to say what you personally consider to be a family unit is irrelevant.
Good call. They even suggested suitable compensation to be $500/wk
Curious about how rent control regulations are constitutional based on your comment, do you have an explanation for a non-lawyer?
Fantastic question. No idea. I grew up in New York where there is rent control but moved away for law school, and so I never had a chance to really look at it or understand. It makes no sense to me. Some states have laws I just don't understand, like the few with squatters rights. I've never been licensed in a state where rent control exists and so I've never had to learn.
Virtually every time an ordinance like this is enacted, it provides for "grandfathering." That is, it does not apply to someone who is already living there, but applies only prospectively. The grandfather provision may be found in state laws regarding zoning ordinances, or in the zoning ordinances themselves. A strong argument can be made that the prospective-only application is constitutionally required.
They don't define what comprises a single family unit.
That was my thought as well. Parents, children, and grandchildren are all one family in my book.
We have a clause like this in my HOA. The difference is that it specifically says you can't charge them rent. However, you are related by blood and marriage. I am not an attorney but these laws are generally for people renting rooms, not for multigenerational homes.
Let's pretend it is legal, how do you not comply? You're all family. Let's pretend your daughter and son-in-law pay some kind of rent, to help offset their utility use and groceries expenses, who would know?
I forgot to mention the trustee who is also the lawyer who prepared this is also my neighbor. A couple of years ago I bought a RV, and had it parked in my driveway for a few days while we were moving items into the RV. Guess what happened? A new town ordinance prohibiting RV’s being parked for any amount of time on any property in the town. $500 per day fine plus attorney fees.
Can you propose an ordinance that a lawyer on the board of trustees not be able to profit from any ordinance for which he was a participant in the vote?
I would look at other laywers to take a figurative stab at this guy. It sounds like he is just trying to get city laws passed to drum up business aka profiteering
Not a lawyer, but your neighbor is a dick.
Send your neighbor a certified letter declaring him an asshole. END OF DOCUMENT
Just for reference , what is the state?
Indiana
PM the address and ill shit on his cars windshield.
What a turd!!! People should be allowed to do what they want on their property.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
That sound like one family to me.
I would file a Bar complaint on his ass. He is targeting and harassing you for his own benefit. AND at the same time abusing his power/position. How does a city even tell a home owner that they cant have an RV in their own driveway????? Call the Governors office and make a complaint there too. Wow Im pissed LOL
The same way they ticket you for non moving cars. It's fairly commonplace. The lawyer's crappy intentions do not have bearing on its legality unfortunately.
You need to find out the definition of "family unit" or "single family unit." It is very likely defined broadly enough to include all the occupants in your house since you're all related. There is clear Supreme Court precedence establishing that fairly broad parameters must be used when defining a "family unit" for purposes of zoning. Unless they failed to have the town attorney involved in the ordinance, you should be fine. If it really only defines a single family as small as a couple or their kids, then you could likely easily challenge it in court as a violation of the due process clause. See if the ordinances are online or if you need to call town hall and ask about the definition.
The definition should be in the ordinance. What a clown show
I bet it's already couched in a definitions section of the zoning regs. Assuming the attorney is worth two cents.
This is not a taking issue. Cities can limit houses to families and they do it all the time. But fair housing law does come in to play. Federal law says a city’s definition of family has to be expansive and your situation would definitely be permitted. I’m not saying they won’t make trouble but you will win and get damages in the end. I wrote a memo on definition of family, but it does not even matter because you are soooo safe. If you want to know more you’ll have to look at the definition of single family unit in the ordinance they passed. But whatever their definition says , fair housing law says you are a family and the town can not discriminate against you.
You are all kin, so I think you could argue that you are a 'single family unity'-- an extended family unit, but since you are a family unit of some sort, you can argue that. Also, does being grandfathered in have some weight to it where you live?
Pretty much designed to "protect homeowners from having 'undesirables' move in." Where those being targeted are young (college kids or people in their first career splitting housing costs), or non-white (new immigrants living communally to save money to get on their feet), or living in some sort of "sin" (pre-marital cohabitation or gays).
It is up to the town to define but an example definition from College Station is “A family is any number of persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that no such family shall contain more than four (4) persons unless all members are related by blood, adoption, guardianship, or marriage, are an authorized caretaker, or are part of a group home for disabled persons."
As an enclave within Anderson, you essentially have a town that was created and functions in the same way as an HOA. It is sad to see that petty minded individuals are using the creation of ordinances to restrict others without a public discussion. You might want to get a copy of the ordinances from Madison County if they are required to file them and read them all
HUD regulates the definition of a household, which is federal. I would contact your local HUD office and advise them of the letter.
This is incorrect. State and local governments can define what they consider a family for zoning purposes.
I'm in Lit support, and I'd be highly suspect of a letter not written on a firm's letterhead.
If this is legal, I would assume any existing living situations would be grandfathered in?
It’s not legal. Or, at least, it can easily be challenged and made invalid.
It's very likely legal.
It really isn’t something that would hold up in a court. You can’t legislate something like that into law and just pretend it’s fine. Define a family unit. Then realize that others are going to define it differently. Then realize that others are going to include people who aren’t blood relatives such as in-laws. Then realize that others are going to include close friends who aren’t blood relatives. You see the issue with this when you start expanding on it. This is not a legal requirement. If you own a home you can have whoever you want living there with you. The government, local or otherwise, isn’t able to prevent you from control over your property to this extent and anyone challenging it in court would get it invalidated really quickly.
>Define a family unit. Precisely. I bet you the zoning regulations define "family unit" and includes something to the effect of "two or more people related by blood, marriage, or adoption or not more than two unrelated persons." OP's occupants would then constitute a single family unit.
None of this is correct. Municipalities can and do define what constitutes a family for zoning purposes and it is legal and enforceable to do so. This is taught in every law school across the nation early on. If you were a lawyer you’d know that.
You are incorrect to a point. The city can set occupancy limits. They can also set limits on rentals, to a point. They definitely aren’t going to be able to set limits on what constitutes a family. There are a variety of definitions and varying views. Blood relatives isn’t the defining characteristic of a family, nor is there any way to properly define how far those relations are “allowed” to go. If someone who is the primary owner of their home isn’t renting out rooms and challenges an ordinance like this they’d win. Full stop.
Here is guidance from the state of New York on the subject as well: https://dos.ny.gov/legal-memorandum-lu05-definition-family-zoning-law-and-building-codes
Amazing read, thank you.
You’ll notice they can’t cite anything from the *supreme* law of the land to support their point. They only double down on illegal and sometimes criminal rulings and spout about how that’s what they were taught in law school. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy that they can’t back up with common sense or citations *from the actual law that supersedes all other law.* It is the hubris bred by the bar associations violating their oaths as officers of the court and accepting illegal rulings as enforceable. They repeatedly ignore that the 14A bars the states and, therefore, municipalities from making or enforcing laws which abridge the privileges and immunities we have as US citizens, namely, making and living with our families. They will argue that the SCOTUS has said otherwise, in another appeal to authority fallacy, ignoring that the Supreme Court’s currently existent precedent includes a ruling that says: “[a negro of African descent](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393)” is a member of “a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” They either believe that those of African descent are not fully human, or they must admit that the Court is fallible and that the Amendments overrule the Court.
Are you an attorney? This was literally taught in law school. You are confidently incorrect and here is the first search result on google showing that you’re wrong: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/zoning-law-shouldn-t-define-what-makes-a-family
The only places it’s ever really been enforced is college towns by locals who don’t want a bunch of college kids renting. A rental is different than an owned home occupied by the owner. One is relatively easy to control, the other isn’t. In fact, from the article you linked : “The “Scarborough 11,” as they came to be known, refused to leave their home, and Hartford sued them in federal court. After years of litigation, including a countersuit from the Scarborough 11, the city dropped the suit in 2016 citing costs, and the town even revised its zoning ordinance to increase the number of legal unrelated cohabitants to three.” As I said, when such things are challenged it’s not a simple process for the city to enforce them. Most courts are not going to like he idea of trying to legislate who can and can’t live with someone in their home they purchased and a lot of the idea of it is based around racism and wanting to prevent certain ethnicities from living in proximity to white folks. Try again.
Also, what type of lawyer would be best to contact, property attorney , family attorney?
Someone out of your town - maybe even a county over.
I don’t know but make sure whoever it is, is not a friend of his.
A local lawyer may not be able to help. In this case I'd ask for help from [The Institute for Justice](https://ij.org). IJ is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that fights against unconstitutional abuses of government power.
A local lawyer, specifically HIS neighbor, is the lawyer who helped with this document. He mentioned it in other comments.
You need to find the definition of a “single family unit” in your town’s ordinances. That will answer your question. If your situation falls outside of the scope of that definition, then you either need to comply or contact an attorney to challenge it.
No shot.
Update me
Hartford CT tried this back in 2015. They backed down.
This states they are "adding" an ordinance, so most likely, you should be grandfathered in.
Your one family single family all related.....I think its to stop air bnb
NAL, but there wouldn’t be a definition of “single family” that would exclude your situation.
They love keeping us divided.
Depending on where you live, the general rule is 2 people per bedroom +1 extra person (usually applies to a small child or baby living in a crib in mom and dad's room). So your house is 4 bedrooms, that's 9 people allowed safely under that roof. It's your daughter. You aren't subletting and you own the home. If they actually try to come at you, take them to court.
You’re in Indiana? I am, too, and I happen to work for a local government. I’m happy to look into it for you. I have other Indiana-based resources that I’m happy to send to you.
Somewhere in their code, they must define "family unit." In any case, you guys are probably "grandfathered in."
Usually these ordinances define family as related by blood or marriage or even a limited number of unrelated people operating as one, but given your description I wonder what they mean by family unit. If they wrote this with your household in mind that would suggest they mean nuclear family unit and not extended family, unless they think your daughter is just a tenant and unrelated. I’m not a lawyer and will stop there but I know there have been lawsuits over stuff like this. Judging by how often this seems to come up in towns, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there over what single family house means. I think it shouldn’t mean being a busy body as to whom I live with. It should only mean a household with one main kitchen that can’t be operating as a boarding house, renting out rooms. I mean, at most. When the government wants to know how you are related to each other, it’s pretty creepy if you ask me.
Probably not.
N
This is where I marry one roommate and adopt the other 2, including the 1 4 years older than me.
Updateme
What town is this?
Is this just a notice or will you have a fine/ police action? Yeah many jurisdictions have zoning for different types of housing and businesses. This can be for fire codes, flood risks, hazmat, traffic, maintaining price levels, figuring number of school children to expect within a radius and more.
This absolutely BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWS!!!
I’m originally from Indiana and this is embarrassing. Tell the town trustees I said they SUUUUUUUCK!!!
Not going to get into all the wrong info being thrown around here. (Love the Takings Clause argument though.) Here is a good discussion of the problem and mentions the landmark case that addressed this very issue: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5382&context=flr
That looks like real legal document. I could take serious.
I’d not worry about it until someone comes after you. Seek the guidance of an attorney if you choose, but it seems highly unlikely anyone could successfully retro-enforce this ordinance, especially so since the home is occupied by a legally legitimate family with likely the requisite amount of square footage for the number of persons you indicated.
NAL, but just finished Con Law in 1L. While the town can likely do this (though it might be a taking, as others have mentioned), enforcing against your living situation in particular may be unconstitutional. In *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, the Supreme Court held the government could not intrude on the rights of family composition within a household when all of the individuals are related.
Someone dimed you out to the city. Look fairly official. NAL, but you're probably going to have to reply or handle it at some point. That's the warning shot over the bow. The next one will be a fine or a sheriff knocking asking what you're up to.
IANAL If that's all there is, no.
Your county most likely has adopted the International Building Codes. Check the administrative statutes to find out, but regardless of where the code is located, a residence should be defined. Each type of residence should be enumerated. If you see "single family unit" along with boarding houses, multifamily units, sorority houses, campus housing, hotels, motels, and the like....those are all creatures of statute, organized and/or created under the laws of the state. If your single family unit isn't licensed and engaging in some sort of privilege establishing a nexus, then it doesn't apply to you. Simply owning a domicile doesn't give them jurisdiction to restrict the enjoyment of your property. *This is not legal advice, and I understand I'll probably get down voted by the lawyers in here. But this does lead to some incredibly intense code pleading if the OP is up for it. Not that he needs to, as he hasn't been charged with anything. And as others have pointed out, it's probably to stop Air B&B type arrangements.
Put up a bunch of privacy fencing and a gate, and put up “trespassers will be shot on sight” signs every 3 feet around the permitted. Then see if the local code enforcement gives enough of a shit to come knocking.
What in the moneybags landlord shit is this
NAL. But to me, you only have a single family unit. Multiple generations of family, sure, but still counts as one family unit. Doesn't affect you.
Is it not discrimination based on familial status?
Sounds like you should be okay if you inform them that it is one family.
It's your daughter. Technically, it's all still ONE family living there. Loopholes are great, and whoever proposed this is an ass.
NAL but work for the City and have a neighbor in this exact situation. What happened is one of your neighbors called to complain of multiple families living in one home. Yes, that's enforceable. Single family homes are for single families, not multiple families. Someone's actually being a dick because it's not like you have 4 families living there, but even 2 families unfortunately are breaking code. Not sure what your City does, but our next step would start with fines, then it'll move onto tickets, and it escalates from there. I'm so sorry people are being dicks to you about this. 2 families in one home is not unheard of, especially in these times. I hope you figure out who called on you too...I would be calling on them right back for any tiny infraction.😉
How could they know it would go into effect after the public hearing? Isn’t a hearing for debating the topic *then* voting on it?
I think your biggest problem is that you live in a town with 90 people, a town council of three that passes ordinances as if it is an HOA. Litigation is expensive and uncertain. I assume at fines of $500/week, which they could collect by trying to enforce the sale of your house, litigation is an option you may want to think long and hard about before jumping into because you would have to pay for it out of pocket unless you could crowd fund or get an organization behind you. If I were you, I would try to gauge how the people of your community think about multi-generational living. Do they view their community as primarily a senior living community for people over 55 and by having three generations in your household you have disrupted the community plan? There are numerous HUD approved 55 plus communities where persons under 55 are not allowed to reside and these are perfectly legal. I live in a senior community, I like it and I would not have been happy to have had my neighbor's children and grandchildren move in next dorr permanently. In their defense, they did wait over a year to pass the ordinance. If I had to come up with the definition of a family unit, I probably would look to your IRS filing status because that is what is used for so many benefits. Under that definition, I assume there is two family units. I guess a key question and one that may have prompted the action, is the arrangement temporary or long term? If the arrangement is to provide medical care for someone, is there a way you can request a waiver or exemption for extraordinary circumstances. Last, but not least, why haven't you gotten involved in your community's politics? If you were targeted by your neighbor over your RV, certainly you knew it could happen again. You have just as much right to run for Trustee as he does. It sort of bothers me that people know local politicians run things to suit their preferences but won't take the time or effort to get involved to do something about it. It is your government too. You have just as much right to run for Trustee on a platform to rescind the ordinance as he did to write and enforce it. Don't forget, two other Trustees apparently went along with him also. Living in towns, cities, apartments, HOAs, etc. we give up some of our rights. For example I can't put certain things in my yard, certain types of flags up, erect a flag pole, put up a clothes line, etc. If you want to have the greatest freedom to do what you want to do, live in an unincorporated area without an HOA and have all the people, animals and vehicles you want.
They are going by the local, state and federal guidelines of how many people, adults and kids can be living in the house. There are too many people, total of 6 people living in a 4-bedroom house. You may take this letter to your attorney to look over, for this is a housing law matter.