Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1996

Home

Z.B. February 1996 -- Pag.e. 3 air and noise pollution from changed truck routes, reduce highway safety due to a more direct truck route onto the main road, and degrade the surrounding area's aesthetics. The project was not exempt from wetland rules either. The slope failure was not due to routine repair of a "structure or facility" because the clay berm was not a structure or facility. Had Earth Construction maintained the berm, the clay may not have slipped. Special Use Permit m Neighbors Object to Group Home for Troubled Teens Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 903 P. 2d 986 (Washington) 1995 Sunderland Family Treatment Services wanted to run a residential crisis center for teenagers in a house it owned in the city of Pasco, Wash. The six- bedroom house, which resembled those around it, was in a residential zoning district. As an "unclassified use," the crisis center could operate with a special use permit in any district where it was not otherwise prohibited. Sunderland applied for a special use permit. It proposed housing up to eight teenagers who were abused or neglected, or had no other place to go. Sunderland said it would not accept children who used drugs or alcohol, and there would be at least two full-time supervisors. Objecting neighbors testified at meetings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The council adopted the commission's recommendation to deny Sunderland's appl!cation. It found the home had a location, size, and intensity that would not fit with the neighborhood's character; would put troubled teenagers next to elderly families and young families with small children; would decrease property values; would bring more noise and security problems; and would be better located in a more transitional neighborhood. Sunderland asked a court to review the city's decision. It claimed the denial was handicap discrimination in violation of the Washington Housing Policy Act. Sunderland also argued the city's factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The court reversed, finding handicap discrimination. ]2 ordered that Sunderland be allowed to operate immediately without a special use permit. The court also found two of the city's findings were not supported by evidence, but three were minimally supported. The city appealed, claiming the permit denial was not discriminatory because. the teenagers were not handicapped under the federal Fair Housing Amend- ments Act. Sunderland countered that the teenagers fit either of two categories: they were physically or mentally impaired, or the city and the neighbors regarded them as such. Sunderland appealed the court's finding that some of the city's factual find- ings were supported by evidence. DECISION: Returned to the city for further proceedings. The teenagers were not handicapped, so the city did not violate the state Housing Policy Act. However, the permit denial was not based on substantial findings of fact, so the case was returned to the city for further proceedings.