Nice Properties 1 Block From The Daytona Beach!
Occupancy Standards For Eagle Apartments EA-001
Linda Darrell Properties
509 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach Florida, 32118
Phone: 407 802 0114
Daytona Beach
Occupancy Standard for Eagle Apartments
509 South Grandview Ave Daytona Beach 32118.
EA-001 Two people to a bedroom
“There is no federal legislation to standardize the enforcement of apartment occupancy laws. Though the Keating Memorandum of 1991 states that a policy of two people to a bedroom seemed sound to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there is no language in the Fair Housing Act that directly addresses either the number or relationship of people legally allowed to occupy an apartment.” Below are excerpts from different HUD and PHA resources.
NEW POLICIES INTRODUCED IN HANDBOOK 4350.3 REV-1,
OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSIDIZED MULTIFAMILY
Public Housing Administration
7465.1 REV-2 CHG-1
CHAPTER 5: TENANT SELECTION
5-1. SIZE OF UNIT NEEDED
CHAPTER 5
(a) No more than two persons would be required to occupy a bedroom.
(b) Persons of different generations, persons of the opposite sex (other than spouses) and unrelated adults would not be required to share a bedroom.
(c) Husband and wife share the same bedroom.
(d) Children of the same sex share a bedroom.
(e) Children, with the possible exception of infants, would not be required to share a bedroom with persons of different generations, including their parents.
NUMBER OF Bedroom(s) NUMBER OF PERSONS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
0 1 1
1 1 2
2 2 4
BELOW IS TAKEN FROM:
HUD HANDBOOK 4350.3: OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSIDIZED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAMS
SUMMARY FOR TENANTS
October 2003
Q: What are occupancy standards and how do they affect a family’s eligibility to live in a specific HUD-subsidized property?
A: Owners of HUD-subsidized properties must develop occupancy standards that specify the unit size and number of bedrooms appropriate for different family sizes. Occupancy standards ensure that tenants are treated fairly and consistently, and receive adequate housing space. One example of an occupancy standard is a limit of two persons per bedroom.
For additional information on occupancy standards, please refer to HUD Handbook 4350.3 Rev-1, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-22.
Eagle Apartments Comments:
At this time, we are not a HUD-subsidized property, but employ their guidance.
We strive to provide all of our residents a safe, clean, happy environment, crime and drug free multifamily living experience. We have employed the HUD guidelines for the health, safety and wellbeing for all residents. We truly believe for the size, accommodations, and Human factors for each apartment the two person per bedroom rule is absolutely fair,safe, just and reasonable.
Eagle Properties.
LEGAL EXAMPLE 1.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
EMIL NUNEZ AND CELESTINA NUNEZ,
Petitioner,
Respondent. HUD Case No. 04-02-0761-8
FCHR Case No. 22-91292H
DOAH Case No. 02-4807
FCHR Order No. 04-003
FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
RELIEF FROM A DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICE
Preliminary Matters
Petitioners, EMIL NUNEZ AND CELESTINA NUNEZ, filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes, alleging that Respondent, LES MONTELLIER APARTMENTS, committed an unlawful act of housing discrimination based on their familial status. The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated and on September 3, 2002, the Executive Director issued his determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory act occurred. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief and was granted a formal evidentiary hearing that was held by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Miami, Florida, on May 21, 2003, before Administrative Law Judge John G. Van Laningham. A transcript of the proceeding was originally filed July 25, 2003 with a corrected final copy filed August 22, 2003.
Judge Van Laningham issued a Recommended Order of Dismissal dated September 26, 2003.
The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Petitioners alleged that they were discriminated by the respondent due to their family status. They alleged that the respondent’s policy of two persons per bedroom unlawfully prevented them from renting a one-bedroom apartment in which the father, mother and 4-year old daughter could reside. The Judge found that the policy was uniformly applied, that two bedroom apartments existed in the complex (although one was not available at the time) and that Respondent had rented to families in the complex. He further found that the policy was consistent with HUD’s (and local housing authority’s) policy on occupancy standards. The Petitioners failed to present persuasive evidence that the policy, as applied to the unit in question, was unreasonable. The ALJ determined that it was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for declining to rent to the Nunez family a one-bedroom unit and, uniformly applied, did not constitute discrimination against familial units.
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact and his conclusion that the Petitioner failed to carry their burden of proof and that the Respondent provided legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons for its actions.
Exceptions
Neither party filed any exceptions to the Recommended Order.
Dismissal
509 South Grandview Ave Daytona Beach 32118.
EA-001 Two people to a bedroom
“There is no federal legislation to standardize the enforcement of apartment occupancy laws. Though the Keating Memorandum of 1991 states that a policy of two people to a bedroom seemed sound to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there is no language in the Fair Housing Act that directly addresses either the number or relationship of people legally allowed to occupy an apartment.” Below are excerpts from different HUD and PHA resources.
NEW POLICIES INTRODUCED IN HANDBOOK 4350.3 REV-1,
OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSIDIZED MULTIFAMILY
- FAMILY SIZE FOR INCOME LIMITS
Public Housing Administration
7465.1 REV-2 CHG-1
CHAPTER 5: TENANT SELECTION
5-1. SIZE OF UNIT NEEDED
- POLICY
CHAPTER 5
- DISCUSSION
(a) No more than two persons would be required to occupy a bedroom.
(b) Persons of different generations, persons of the opposite sex (other than spouses) and unrelated adults would not be required to share a bedroom.
(c) Husband and wife share the same bedroom.
(d) Children of the same sex share a bedroom.
(e) Children, with the possible exception of infants, would not be required to share a bedroom with persons of different generations, including their parents.
- (2) These guidelines result in the following range of persons per bedroom:
NUMBER OF Bedroom(s) NUMBER OF PERSONS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
0 1 1
1 1 2
2 2 4
BELOW IS TAKEN FROM:
HUD HANDBOOK 4350.3: OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSIDIZED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAMS
SUMMARY FOR TENANTS
October 2003
Q: What are occupancy standards and how do they affect a family’s eligibility to live in a specific HUD-subsidized property?
A: Owners of HUD-subsidized properties must develop occupancy standards that specify the unit size and number of bedrooms appropriate for different family sizes. Occupancy standards ensure that tenants are treated fairly and consistently, and receive adequate housing space. One example of an occupancy standard is a limit of two persons per bedroom.
For additional information on occupancy standards, please refer to HUD Handbook 4350.3 Rev-1, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-22.
Eagle Apartments Comments:
At this time, we are not a HUD-subsidized property, but employ their guidance.
We strive to provide all of our residents a safe, clean, happy environment, crime and drug free multifamily living experience. We have employed the HUD guidelines for the health, safety and wellbeing for all residents. We truly believe for the size, accommodations, and Human factors for each apartment the two person per bedroom rule is absolutely fair,safe, just and reasonable.
Eagle Properties.
LEGAL EXAMPLE 1.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
EMIL NUNEZ AND CELESTINA NUNEZ,
Petitioner,
Respondent. HUD Case No. 04-02-0761-8
FCHR Case No. 22-91292H
DOAH Case No. 02-4807
FCHR Order No. 04-003
FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
RELIEF FROM A DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICE
Preliminary Matters
Petitioners, EMIL NUNEZ AND CELESTINA NUNEZ, filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes, alleging that Respondent, LES MONTELLIER APARTMENTS, committed an unlawful act of housing discrimination based on their familial status. The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated and on September 3, 2002, the Executive Director issued his determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory act occurred. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief and was granted a formal evidentiary hearing that was held by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Miami, Florida, on May 21, 2003, before Administrative Law Judge John G. Van Laningham. A transcript of the proceeding was originally filed July 25, 2003 with a corrected final copy filed August 22, 2003.
Judge Van Laningham issued a Recommended Order of Dismissal dated September 26, 2003.
The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Petitioners alleged that they were discriminated by the respondent due to their family status. They alleged that the respondent’s policy of two persons per bedroom unlawfully prevented them from renting a one-bedroom apartment in which the father, mother and 4-year old daughter could reside. The Judge found that the policy was uniformly applied, that two bedroom apartments existed in the complex (although one was not available at the time) and that Respondent had rented to families in the complex. He further found that the policy was consistent with HUD’s (and local housing authority’s) policy on occupancy standards. The Petitioners failed to present persuasive evidence that the policy, as applied to the unit in question, was unreasonable. The ALJ determined that it was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for declining to rent to the Nunez family a one-bedroom unit and, uniformly applied, did not constitute discrimination against familial units.
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact and his conclusion that the Petitioner failed to carry their burden of proof and that the Respondent provided legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons for its actions.
Exceptions
Neither party filed any exceptions to the Recommended Order.
Dismissal