Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page 6 -- ~pril 1996 z.g. Special U?e -- City Limits Number of Residents Allowed in Homeless Shelter Turning Point Inc. v. City of CaldweIl, 74 F. 3d 94I (Idaho) 1996 Turning Point Inc. was a nonprofit organization seeking property to use as a homeless shelter. In 1991, it found out about an available two-story, single- family resi)ence in a commercial zone in the city of Caldwell, Idaho. Before ibuying the property, Turning Point's operators contacted the city Planning ahd Zoning Department and were told they woUld not need a special use permit.I Turning Point bought the house and opened it in March 1992 as a 24-hour em. ergency shelter for the homeless. Seventy-five percent of the resi- dents had a!physical or mental disability. By June 1993, the average occupancy was about 33. In July ~1993, the fire department noticed the house was overcrowded and heard up to!45 occupants had been in the house at one time. A month later, the building inspector notified Turning Point that unless it made certain structural changes, iticould house at most 10 occupants. With the changes, the house would quali~y as a "congregate residence" and could house more than 10 people. The Plagning and Zoning Department director told Turning Point the house was in a commercial zone, and that, because the house was a "boardinghouse," the zoning ~rdinance limited its maximum occupancy to 12. To house more than 12 peoOle, Turning Point would have to get the house reclassified as "pub- lic/semi-public housing"; such a use required a special use permit in commer- cial zones. TurningiPoint applied for a special use permit. In the application, it asked to be allow 'ext to accommodate up to 40 residents. Meanwhile, it began limiting its residents! to 12. In Dece~nber 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a spe- ci'al use perr~it that limited the house's occupancy to 25. Among other require- men'ts, Turnling' Point also had to undergo an annual review of its special use permit, apparently 'to ensure the shelter had no adverse impact' on the neighb0rhoO~d's character. Turning !Point appealed to the City Council, claiming the occupancy limit was too low, A neighbor also appealed, claiming the limit was too high. At heariCgs, Turning Point argued the limit violated the federal Fair Hous- ing Act because it discriminated against the handicapped. The fire chief said that for the house to be safe, the limit should be 25. A council member stated that although "the letter of the law dictates that 25 is an acceptable figure," 15 was "the tol4rable number." The cour~cil adopted 15 as the new occupancy limit, along with other con- ditions, inclU~ding annual review of the special use permit. Turning ~oint sued the city, claiming it discriminated against the handi- capped under the Fair Housing Act and that the zoning ordinance's section on