Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

I; .';.' ' 102 Zoning Bulletin eight or fewer persons and was a type of special care hqme. While the Code generally p:rohibited more than two unrelated persons from re- .'~ siding in a typical single unit in an R-1 district, it allowed up to eight unrelated persons to live in a special care home that was either a sin- . gle unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling if the persons living in the unit were receiving more than 12 hours per day of on-premises treatments for certain physical or mental illnesses or behavioral problems. A caregiver staff member and her adult daughter resided in the facil- ity, in addition to eight special care residents. Benjamin Lieb (Lieb) lived next to the facility. Lieb asked the city's Department of Zoning Administration (the Department) to prohibit the caregiver staff member and her daughter from residing in the facility. Lieb argued that the use of the facility as a primary residence by the staff member and her adult daughter violated the Code. Specifically, he argued that under the Code staff members were expressly prohibited from re- siding in small residential care facilities because: (1) the Code expressly permitted special care residents to use residential care facilities as their primary residence, but did not expressly permit staff members to do the same; (2) the Code required any person residing in a special care home receive more thim 12 hours per day of special care; and (3) the Code lim- ited the number of persons living in small residential facilities to eight. Lieb further argued that since the use of a residential care facility as a primary residence by staff members was expressly prohibited it was not permitted as an accessory use. The Department rejected Lieb's interpretation of the Cpde. The De- partment found that the Code did not expressly address whether caretak- ers were permitted to reside in residential care facilities. It fOuild that the limit of eight persons allowed to reside in a residential care facility relat- ed only to special care residents and not staff members. The Department . concluded that because the use of a residential care facility as a primary residence by a staff member and her daughter was not inconsistent with the residential care use, it was therefore permitted as an accessory use. Lieb appealed the Department's decision'to the Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals for the City and County (the Board). The Boardup- held the Department's decision. Lieb appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. On appeal, the court noted that it must uphold an administrative board's interpretation of the law if it was supported by a reasonable ba- sis. The court rejected Lieb's interpretation of the Code and fOJiIld the Board's interpretation of the Code was supported by a reasonable basis. 10 d" ~. ~ '. .~~. r~' c....... '.. ...- .J ('C'''' .,. : .,-'. \" -) I I ! I. I