Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 8. July 25, 1999 Z.B. St. Joseph's had to submit a development plan to get a conditional use permit, because its plan involved using an existing building for a new use. Under the city zoning ordinance, a development concept plan would be ap- proved if there was a "beneficial relationship between the proposed develop- ment and the neighborhood in which it is to be established." St. Joseph's said the home would house at most nine girls, who would be supervised by six staff members and subject to strict guidelines. The city plan- ner said the city and neighborhood would benefit from the management and supervision the group home would provide to its residents. St. Joseph's claimed group homes' residents were excellent, helpful neighbors and that there was no relationship between crime and the presence of group homes. A man who lived near a group home said the group home increased the value of his property. St. Joseph's also claimed city residents would benefit from having the services of the group home available to them and that the city could benefit from the taxes paid by the residents and the staff. The zoning board granted St. Joseph's a permit. A group of neighbors ap- pealed to the city council, which affirmed the board's decision. The neighbors appealed to court, claiming tha city shouldn't have issued the permit because St. Joseph's failed to prove the group home would benefit the neighborhood. They claimed there was almost no evidence the home would benefit the neighborhood, and they said any benefits were too insubstantial and were outweighed by negative effects such as declining property values and a high incidence of police calls to similar group homes St. Joseph's operated. The court found there was enough evidence to support the city's conclu- sion that the group home would, benefit its neighbors. It noted the residents would be strictly supervised, contrary to the situation with "average" young people. It also noted the city would benefit from having the home available for teens and would benefit from taxes paid by the residents. The neighbors appealed again, claiming St. Joseph's didn't show the type of "beneficial relationship" required by the zoning ordinance. DECISION: Affirmed. St. Joseph's was entitled to the permit. The term "beneficial relationship" didn't require that the benefits outweigi~ the negative effects the home might have, as the neighbors argued. Though St. Joseph's may not have shown the home would have a particular benefit to the immediate neighborhood, the term "benefit" also meant "a positive good." In that respect, there was more than enough evidence the home would benefit the city. The home would operate with controls on the behavior of its residents that didn't exist elsewhere with respect to multifamily dwellings. St. Joseph's showed residents of similar group homes helped their neighbors, especially the elderly. Finally, there was evidence the community would benefit from having the home available for use by young women whose families lived in the city. Citation: Mi~ottghan v. City of Kettering, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd Appellate Dist., Montgomery County, No. 17537 (1999).