"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
A Fix For Residential Overcrowding?
By Greg L | 15 October 2008 | Prince William County | 36 Comments
Yesterday at the Prince Willam Board of County Supervisors meeting Michelle Casciato reported on an overcrowding pilot program. She introduced two consultants from Community Planning and Design who had studied the issues with the county’s current overcrowding code enforcement and recommended the Prince William County adopt similar code enforcement regulations as Herndon. They gave several examples comparing the current to the proposed rules and the benefits thereof and did a very good job of laying out the case. They indicated the Herndon code enforcement, which uses gross square footage to determine the maximum number of residents that can occupy a single family residence would be very defensible as it is similar to existing Virginia code.
There were no real objections expressed by the Supervisors to the recommendation, so John Stirrup as presiding Chairman requested staff prepare an amended change to zoning enforcement for the Board to vote on in the near future. This ordinance would be much easier to enforce than existing overcrowding regulations which are entirely inadequate to control residential overcrowding in the count. Current regulations depend on occupants not lying to inspectors and saying that they’re related to the homeowner, which those who are overcrowding houses in the county have learned is an easy way to circumvent the law. When that can’t be enforced, the international fire code governs occupancy limits, often allowing sixteen people to live in a three bedroom house. This ordinance would slip in-between those two regulations, hopefully putting an end to the horrendous problems some residents face as a resut of irresponsible neighbors that flout the law.
It looks like our wishes may come true, as long as the number of occupants allowed per square foot are very similar to the limit that is working in Herndon.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
36 Comments
Views: 1894
Loading ...
Finally a solution that is fair, reasonable and doesn’t require a darn DNA test to prove or disprove there is a violation!!!! Hopefully this common sense approach will be approved!!!!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is great news. It was way too complicated turning in overcrowded houses under the “pilot” program where you had to collect all of the license plate numbers and makes/models of vehicles, especially where there was a huge parking lot in the back yard of the overcrowded homes.
Hopefully this will get put on the fast track for implementation.
cosign
Too bad no one thought of this before the BOCS spent millions of your hard earned tax dollars on their “Resolution” Seems a day late and a dollar short to me.
An Independent - clearly you are not an independent. Multiple millions of our tax dollars were being spent on providing services to illegal aliens in PWC. Billions each year are spent nationwide - more than the Iraq war costs for one year.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion - even if it is wrong because you are unenlightened.
Sounds good on paper. Let’s see if it passes the smell test and is put into law. If in fact it does pass, how will PWC police react when they are called to enforce the law. Will it be up to the discretion of the police officer (through the COP) to chose whether or not to take action? Remember the “Resolution” of last year? Sounded good till it was gutted at a supervisor’s meeting.
DportM said on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:00 am:
An Independent - clearly you are not an independent. Multiple millions of our tax dollars were being spent on providing services to illegal aliens in PWC.
What “services” were being provided to illegal aliens in PWC prior to the “resolution” at the cost of “multiple millions of our tax dollars? It is against the Federal and State law to provide tax payer money to illegal aliens. What am I missing?
“BOCS spent millions of your hard earned tax dollars on their “Resolution””
How so? A good some of money was spent on 287g but just how much was spent on the resolution?
Free healthcare at the emergency rooms and free babies at the hospitals (15 million total at PWCH in 2007) and health department. Free food at schools. Educational costs associated with the children of illegal aliens. WIC and Medicare for the mothers of the children born to illegal aliens. Student health insurance. Rental and housing assistance (now proof of legal presence is required). Anyone using a stolen social security number gets services. Etc…
How would this rule affect families with many children? I’m thinking about those with 8 children and up - there are quite a few such families in our community.
Herndon has trying to solve the overcrowding problem for years. They have been a leader in enforcement and working with the state legislature to enhance fines. It was not something which happened overnight and requires dedication by both zoning enforcement and legal personnel. It is not a quick fix, however. Reporting is extremely simple. A form can be filled out on-line or by phone. Zoning personnel do all the investigative work and prosecutes the cases in court with support of the legal Town Attorney.
Prince william should adopt our procedures. they work.
You can view the enforcement statistics at the following site:
http://www.dhusch.com/GeneralInformation/Overcrowding/Overcrowding.htm
The Resolution was needed - and so is this.
Brentsville Graduate said on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:28 am:
How would this rule affect families with many children?
Supervisor Mike May raised this very question. The consultants recommended the code be such that it does not count anyone under age 18 living in the residence.
Gee, man - Does this mean that all those construction-worker-boarder-cousins will have to lie about their ages now?
They’ll shave hair off their arms and legs and try to pass for kids.
‘Anonymous said on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:43 am:
Sounds good on paper. Let’s see if it passes the smell test and is put into law. If in fact it does pass, how will PWC police react when they are called to enforce the law. Will it be up to the discretion of the police officer (through the COP) to chose whether or not to take action? Remember the “Resolution” of last year? Sounded good till it was gutted at a supervisor’s meeting.”
See this is why I get snippy with people they KNOW NOT OF WHAT THEY SPEAK.
Pull your head out of your butt and read the freaking post..the police DO NOT ENFORCE this so once again someone is yapping and making snide remarks about the police when this is not even in their purview
Educate yourself before you go and try to get people fired up over your inaccuracies!
Elwina Slopsberg-Dunkle will demand a special square footage exemption for her upscale Haymarket neighborhood to accommodate her fellow he-woman Bon Bon fat a$$e$ that join her for her overnight slumber parties whenever they play BOCS reruns of Elwina at citizens’ time where she tries with perpetual failure to get Corey Stewart so upset that he gets up to take a dry pee.
I think it sounds great. Where can you get more information about the specifics of the Herndon law? I have followed this blog because of my concern about residential overcrowding. Though you all focus on the immigrant population, my problem has been with white neighbors. I don’t care how you are related, a two level townhome with three bedrooms can’t sleep ten people. It is a nuisance to those around you. It would be nice to see something that didn’t get tossed out because of the immigration aspect. Good law is targeted to everyone, written in a way so a single group can’t scream “it’s not fair to us,” as happened in Manassas.
The specific provision in Herndon’s code (courtesy of Dave Core, who posted this in a thread a few weeks back) is as follows:
Dwelling unit occupancy. In any district in which residential uses are allowed or legally exist, a dwelling unit shall be occupied only by a family as defined in Article VII, Definitions. Occupancy by any other entity or person shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and as an element of the use of land under this chapter to define and limit appropriate family use of dwelling units, occupancy of dwelling units shall be limited to the maximum number of occupants allowed by this section, to protect against threats to neighborhood quality that can accompany overcrowding of land, or undue density of population in relation to existing or available community facilities caused by excessive occupancy.
For the purposes of this chapter, an “occupant” is defined as a person 18 years of age or older, living or sleeping in a building, or having possession of a space within a building. The maximum occupancy of dwelling units is as follows:
1. For single-family attached and detached dwellings or two-family dwellings, the maximum number of occupants of each dwelling unit shall not exceed the quotient of the floor area (measured in square feet) of the dwelling unit divided by the number set forth below, rounded up to the next whole number:
i. For a dwelling with a floor area up to 1,500 square feet, use 300 square feet.
ii. For a dwelling with a floor area from 1,501 square feet to 2,100 square feet, use 350 square feet.
iii. For a dwelling with a floor area from 2,101 square feet to 2,800 square feet, use 400 square feet.
iv. For a dwelling with a floor area from 2,801 square feet to 3,600 square feet, use 450 square feet.
v. For a dwelling with a floor area greater than 3,601 square feet, use 500 square feet.
2. For multi-family dwellings, the maximum number of occupants of each dwelling unit shall not exceed the quotient of the floor area (measured in square feet) of the dwelling unit divided by 200, rounded to the nearest whole number.
Thanks… my only concern is that it doesn’t address the number of children. If there are two or three adults and seven or eight kids, this code would allow for five adults and doesn’t cap the number of kids. But I guess it would be a start.
Thanks Greg (and David Core…)
Many threads ago I predicted Herndon would be the next jurisdiction the very Liberal ERC would go after. I have now changed that prediction to PWC if this ordinance is enacted. While I am not a lawyer, this idea was floated around in the City of Manassas and was determined NOT to be legal. Here is the reason why I and others feel this way. The Commonwealth of Virginia has a building code that is called the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VUSBC). Every jurisdiction must enforce this document and it may not be amended locally. The Commonwealth also has enacted a Statewide Fire Prevention Code (SFPC). A local jurisdiction may adopt this code and amend it to more stringent requiremrnts but not less. This is what the City of Manassas did to have uniformed officers of the fire marshal’s office capable of enforcing overcrowding laws. They added the document which regulates residential occupancy limits to their fire code. If a jurisdiction chooses not to enforce the SEPC the State Fire Marshal’s office has that responsibility. The Commonwealth also has a property maintenance code that is part of the VUSBC. It is referenced as Part III of teh VUSBC. A jurisdiction may adopt portions of this code or not at all but they can not amend it. Here in lies the problem with Herndon and PWC. The residential occupancy requirements come out of the property maintenance code. In effect, what Herndon and PWC are doing is amending the Building Code through their zoning ordinances. Again, it may be worth a try and may work for a while before some money grubbing lawyer from DC decides they need your tax dollars more than you do. I hope it works, but I have very serious doubts about its legality (again, I am not an attorney but have many years in the enforcement of property maintenance and fire codes)
I can not for the life of me why can people not understand the fact that we are bound by state laws and regulations? I have posted more than once and have emailed gary himself the definition of a family member!!!!! IT DOESN’T STIPULATE AGE !!!!!! This, the final solution, will go down in the state supreme court at a great cost to the tax payers of PWC.Only when our brethren figure out why this exemption exist in the first place will we have solice in our domicile. The south side Repuplican Party of Virginia do not give a rats ass about our problems here in northern Virginia. They are paid and bougth for by the mighty developement industry. How else can you get cheap labor for boom constuction other than have them croud up together? The change to the state law on family member is sold to the southside electorate as an afrount to their personal liberty of goverment regulation intruding into their lives. In a farm house in some hollow on ten acres of land it makes sense, but in our sprawling subdivisions here in northern Virgnia it is suicide. Where do the southside politicians get there money for office? Write each and every delegate and senator on their opinion on the definition of family members as it relates to houseing and it startle you . Gary, I challege you yourself to this task! Let us put our electorate to the challenge of allowing us to solve a vexing loop hole in the law! Remember the state when it reconvienses every so often adopts national codes: BOCA, NFPA, etc. They have the power to add on to these and modify them as they see fit . Increase the amount square footage a person needs for a domicile, etc. Expecting the BOCS to do something they can not because of the state is a red herring that we are getting, get it, by
The 2009 International codes were approved recently on a national level. These are the codes adopted by most states and then amended at the Virginia state level to suit Virginia’s needs. Soon Virginia will make their changes and approve them for use statewide as part of the VUSBC. This is the chance for the state to toughen the limits in the Property Maintenance Code which now only required 50 square feet of bedroom space per person. To put that into perspective, a 20×20 master bedroom will allow for 8 people in that one room! There are other factors but this formula is pretty standard for most homes built in the past 20 years. Many homes in Manassas have such rooms. If local jurisdictions joined together and pushed this at the state level maybe the change would be made. It would be a lot better than trying to regulate overcrowding by telling me which family members I can and can not live with! Because once the limit is reached no more are permitted even if they are related.
Anonymous 7:11, While I agree with your assesment of good law, Manassas never wrote a law singling out one group. It was portrayed that way by lawyers who felt they needed the money more than the citizens did. While I never agreed with the ordinance as it was written, it was enforced equally on everyone no matter what their race was.
Current regulations depend on occupants not lying to inspectors and saying that they’re related to the homeowner, which those who are overcrowding houses in the county have learned is an easy way to circumvent the law. When that can’t be enforced, the international fire code governs occupancy limits, often allowing sixteen people to live in a three bedroom house.
Gets real cozy with 5 plus people in a bedroom huh?
40 years in Woodbridge said on 16 Oct 2008 at 4:42 pm:
Pull your head out of your butt and read the freaking post..the police DO NOT ENFORCE this so once again someone is yapping and making snide remarks about the police when this is not even in their purview
I suppose it will be the CBOS who will come and enforce an eviction when the residents refuse to follow the law. The post never said the police were the primary enforcers of the law. They are the last resort for an eviction.
DportM said on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:10 am:
Free healthcare at the emergency rooms and free babies at the hospitals (15 million total at PWCH in 2007) and health department. Free food at schools. Educational costs associated with the children of illegal aliens. WIC and Medicare for the mothers of the children born to illegal aliens. Student health insurance. Rental and housing assistance (now proof of legal presence is required). Anyone using a stolen social security number gets services. Etc…
All of the above are STILL being provided and are mandated by Federal law. The resolution hasn’t stopped a single baby of illegal parents from being born in local hospitals, prevented children of illegals from attending our schools and getting free meals. So what has the resolution done?
Anon, it’s discouraged their presence in the first place so they wouldn’t be here to take advantage of all the federally-mandated freebies.
Since Congress won’t fix the policies that encourage illegal aliens, we can at least make somewhere that “welcomes” them bear the burden instead of those of us who would rather see these folks go home.
This all sounded pretty good,but I don’t think we have all the facts that we need.
Square footage can be a down fall, as if the government says 70 to 100 square feet for each person,Do you know where we will be.?????
This counts the hall closet,under the stairs,bath rooms,kitchens,just what does it include?????
Someone besides Cacciato needs to make sure this will really help and not make it worse.
Maybe Stirrup and HSM has some ideas.
“Anonymous said on 16 Oct 2008 at 11:10 pm:
I suppose it will be the CBOS who will come and enforce an eviction when the residents refuse to follow the law. The post never said the police were the primary enforcers of the law. They are the last resort for an eviction.”
No once again you are wrong evictions are handled by the Sheriffs office! And does the County “evict” persons for a house being over crowed???? I have never heard of that around here, I thought an eviction is a process between a landlord / tenant relationship?
You must be new here as the topic of residential overcrowding has been handled here for years and a simple Google search will point you in the right direction for the correct information on who handles these issues….unless of course you come across other people posting things just based on assumptions.
CBOS? BOCS / BOS are you referring to the Board of County Supervisors?
“Here we Go Again said on 17 Oct 2008 at 1:23 am: This all sounded pretty good, but I don’t think we have all the facts that we need. Square footage can be a down fall, as if the government says 70 to 100 square feet for each person, Do you know where we will be.?????”
The 70 to 100 sq foot is based on the International Property Maintenance Code with the updated VUSBC amendments. (check out FormerCOMemployee posts they seem to have a good explanation of the codes)
The Zoning changed sounded like it was going to be in the hundreds of Square ft per person.
Both seem to limit based on square footage the zoning appears to be most restrictive. So would the plan be to apply the zoning standard first and then apply the IPMC w/VUSBC amendments if there was a safety issue with the number of people or other safety feature in a particular room?
Interesting approach….hope it pans out
There are other municipalities who have code similar to this. In the ones I am familiar with, you can count bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, family rooms, but not bathroom, utility rooms nor the kitchen.
40 years in Woodbridge said on 17 Oct 2008 at 5:51 am:
No once again you are wrong evictions are handled by the Sheriffs office!
I guess I was wrong. I assumed that the Sheriffs office had police powers and were considered a part of law enforcement.
Anonymous,
No that changed in 1971 when the BOCS started the Prince William County Police Department. Prior to 1971 the Sheriffs office was the main “law enforcement” agency in the County.
Now they primarily take care of the civil process, court house security and processing inmates. They are still “law enforcement” and there is now a good working relationship between the police and the sheriff’s office.
Here is a link that has some interesting reads and some supportive programs they participate with.
http://www.pwcgov.com/default.aspx?topic=01000600063
anon, you are not completely correct. Dining rooms, living rooms may not always be counted as bedrooms and in most cases they usually can’t. However, there is no requiremnt in the code to have a family room and under certain circumstances it may be counted as a bedroom. A few of the requirements are it must have an emergency escape window, it must have a smoke detector and it can not be used as the only access to another habitable area. So, if you must go through the family room to get to a living room, kitchen, or bedroom, then the family room can not be counted as a bedroom. I am not trying to be a ahole, but it is statements like that that spread fear and misinformation. There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into account to determine the occupant load of a residence. The fastest way is to simply measure each BEDROOM and remember it must be a minimum of 70 square feet and have 50 square feet per person once two people occupy the room. For instance a 100 sq. ft rooms hold 2 and a 150 sq. ft room hold 3 and so on. Also, I will state again, I am only aware of Herndon as having an ordinance such as this and in many people’s opinion, it is not legal and only awaits a court challenge before it is shot down in flames. Remember, VA is a dillon rule state and jurisdictions only have the authority specifically granted to them by the General Assembly, and no where is the authority granted for a local jurisdiction to regulate residential occupancy limits. But again, I am not a lawyer, but I am getting ready to stay in a Holiday Inn!!
FormerCOMemployee said on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:27 pm: Flag comment
anon, you are not completely correct. Dining rooms, living rooms may not always be counted as bedrooms and in most cases they usually can’t. However, there is no requiremnt in the code to have a family room and under certain circumstances it may be counted as a bedroom.
Heard that Colgan’s old house (was Latino owned and since foreclosed) had the downstairs family room partitioned off for use as multiple bedrooms. Anyone else hear that?