|
<br />facilities to the population of neighborhoods,
<br />census tracts, political districts, orthe juris-
<br />diction as a whole. Cities that had or currently.
<br />havepopulation ratio limitations include:
<br />Covington, Kentucky. which permits
<br />one.youth shelter per 25,000 persons in the
<br />city and no more than one addiction treat-
<br />rnentfacility per 25,000 persons residing in
<br />the. city (S6.13).
<br />Miami, which requires a special excep- .
<br />'tion and does not allow community-based.
<br />residential facilities in any census tract
<br />where residents of existing cOmmunity
<br />residential homes or community based.
<br />residential facilities comprisetwo percent
<br />or more of that census traces currer.Jt total
<br />pop ulation(S934.2.2.).
<br />Many jurisdictions include additional
<br />devel.opment regulations in their zoning
<br />codes that address performance standards
<br />and compatibility issues. .
<br />Mesa, Arizona, has enacted compre-
<br />hensive performance standards for social
<br />services facilities. In addition to obtaining a
<br />council use permit, social service faCilities
<br />must comply with size limitations, hours of
<br />operation, and design. requirementsfor basic
<br />amenities such as restrooms, drinking-water,
<br />and seating areas (Sll'20-27).
<br />Council use permits are individually and
<br />explicitly approved only by a city council for
<br />specific uses. Mesa was the only city identified
<br />that requires social service providers to apply
<br />for a council use permit before locating in the
<br />appropriate zoning district. Gyidelines are pro-
<br />vided for use 1n evaluating a proposed facility.
<br />While research shows that jurisdictions
<br />. are concemed with the potential negative
<br />impacts of certain social service uses, no
<br />s!udies could be foundthat documented the
<br />specific negative impacts caused by such
<br />uses. Cincinnati's planning staff contacted
<br />many of the cities that have implemented
<br />regulations on social service facilities to an-
<br />swerthe following questions:
<br />· Why had the municipality adopted regula-
<br />tion for these particular uses? .
<br />· What impacts did these uses have on
<br />neighborhoods that justified regulations?
<br />. How did the municipality document the
<br />impacts of these uses a.e., was a report
<br />. prepared, or a survey or site assessments
<br />conducted)? . .
<br />All of the responding jurisdictions
<br />statedthatthey had not completed specific
<br />studies. They did identify many of the same
<br />. impacts voked by Cincinnati residents. The
<br />concentration of facilities was also a concenl
<br />to seveial jurisdictions. In general, communi-
<br />ties regulating such facilities felt that only a
<br />
<br />. limited number of facilities could be absorbed
<br />before neighborhoods would experience sig-
<br />nificant deterioration in qualityof life.
<br />
<br />DOCUMENTATION: A SOUND APPROACH
<br />Many cities a,re attempting to limit the n~ga-
<br />tive impacts of controversial social service
<br />facilities through various zoning techniques,
<br />licensing requirements, and good-neighbor
<br />plans despite the absence of specific docu-
<br />mentation that there is a direct correlation
<br />between these uses and the negative impacts
<br />identified by neighborhood residents. An-
<br />ecdotal complaints by host neighborhoods
<br />and testimony given at public meetings have
<br />prompted leaders in many municipalities to
<br />implement regulations that would reduce the
<br />impacts on neighborhoods.
<br />Several conciusions can be drawn from
<br />,the Cincinnati experience. Not all socialser-
<br />'vice facilities that provide programs for the,
<br />needy have negative impacts on neighbor-
<br />hoods. The negative behaviors and impacts
<br />repeatedly identified by residents and munici-
<br />palities are more related to drug abuse and
<br />mental illness. The social service facilities
<br />providing services to chronicallY homeless
<br />individuals are more likelytd have negative
<br />behaviors or activities occurring in close prox-
<br />imity. The types of uses that largely provide
<br />programs for chronically homeless individuals
<br />i!1Clude addiction treatment facilities, halfway
<br />houses, homeless shelters, supportive hous-
<br />ing, offender transitional housing, and food
<br />and meal distribution.
<br />Identification ofthe uses to be regu-
<br />lated, precise definition of these uses, and
<br />documentation of their impacts are necessary
<br />elements in substantiating the regulations.
<br />Jurisdictions considering new regulatiOns
<br />should'undertake the following steps prior to
<br />developing and implementing the regulations:
<br />1. Document the location, type, and operation
<br />of existing facilities.
<br />2. Document the property values before and
<br />after new facilities are opened.
<br />3. Document the behaviors, impacts, and con-
<br />~ition of properties through site assessments.
<br />4. Document crime data on police calls and
<br />arrests at operating facilities.
<br />5. Work with real estate appraisers to obtain
<br />,information on impacts and property values.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />Certain social servi~e facilities must be regu-
<br />lated to protect the rights of property owners
<br />and the economic well-being of a municipality.
<br />If corporations or industries were negatively
<br />impacting low-income, high-pOverty neighbor-
<br />
<br />hoods, this would be an environmental justice
<br />issue. The controversial nature of the issues
<br />surrounding poverty, homelessness, mental
<br />illness, and addictions makes the regulation
<br />of social service facilities exceptionally diffi-
<br />cult. However, like every other land use, social
<br />service providers should stnve to be a good
<br />neighbor. Their missions must includeprovi-
<br />sions for community improvement in addition
<br />to improvement to lives of those in need.
<br />Zoning cannot regulate people's be-
<br />haviors or activities that occur on the streets
<br />or sidewalks, but it can regulate land uses
<br />where these behaviors occur and control their
<br />proximity to sensitive uses such as schools,
<br />parks, and residences. Only limited change
<br />will be.brought about by a zoning strategy
<br />alone. It will take a comprehen~ive strategy
<br />and many tools to address issues as complex
<br />as poverty and homelessness. However, zon-
<br />ing can be one of the tools used to sustain
<br />the quality of our neighborhoods and protect
<br />them from deteriorating influences.
<br />
<br />* Part 1 crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggra-
<br />vated assault, burglary, theft, theft from autos, and.auto
<br />theft. Part 2 crimes include assault/menacing, arson,
<br />counterfeits; fraud, embezzlement, receiving, vandal-
<br />ism, weapon offenses, vice, sex offenses, drug offenses,
<br />gambling offenses, offenses against the family, DUls,
<br />liquor establishment offenses, drunkenness,disorderly
<br />conduct,vagraricy, suspicion, traffic offences, and park-
<br />ing offenses.
<br />
<br />Photo by David Morley; design concept
<br />by Lisa Barton.
<br />
<br />VOL. 27, NO.1
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $85 (U.S.) and $110 (foreign). W. Paul
<br />Farmer, FAlCP, Executive Director; William R. Klein,
<br />A1CP, Director of Research
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-(135) is produced
<br />at APA. Jim Schwab, A1CP, and David Morley, A1CP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa
<br />Barton, Design and Production.
<br />
<br />Copyright @2010 by American Planning
<br />Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave" Suite
<br />160Q, Chicago, IL 60603. The American
<br />Planning Association also has offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
<br />20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />maybe reproduced or utilized in any form
<br />()r by any means, electronic or mechanical,
<br />inCluding photocopying, recording, or by any
<br />information storage and retrieval system, without
<br />permission in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70%
<br />recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTlCE 1.10
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />8~/"l
<br />./1
<br />
|