Laserfiche WebLink
page 4 -- September 15, 1995 <br /> <br />7,.g. <br /> <br /> The building was designated a historical landmark, which meant any use was <br />allowed that would preserve the structure and not be detrimental to the neighbor- <br />hood. Therefore, the city council had even greater authority to allow the use. <br /> <br /> Ordinance-- Can Ordinance Expand State Law Definition of Group Home? <br /> TribIe v. Bland, 458 S.E. 2d 297 (Virginia) 1995 <br /> In 1990, the commonwealth of Virginia enacted a law that required local <br /> zoning ordinances to define as single-family residential alt licensed residential <br /> facilities with no more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded, or develop- <br /> mentally disabled residents. The statute also stated, "No conditions more restric- <br /> tive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, <br /> marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility." <br /> The town of West Point's zoning ordinance defined a group home as a <br /> single-family detached dwelling in which "not more than eight [unrelated] physi- <br /> cally handicapped, mentally ill, mentally retarded or other developmentally <br /> disabled persons ... reside on a long-term basis." It also included family care <br /> homes or foster homes. <br /> Trible owned a single-family home in a residential district in West Point. In <br /> December 1992, the town's zoning administrator issued a certificate of use and <br /> occupancy for the single-family house next door to Trible's, allowing a "group <br /> home." The certificate's special conditions section stated, "Self-Care Only/No <br /> More Than 21 Residents." <br /> Trible claimed she first learned that the town granted the certificate in July <br />1993. At that time, she asked for a hearing before the board of zoning appeals. <br />The board found she had requested the hearing too long after the certificate <br />was issued (more than 30 days later), so it denied her request. <br /> In August 1993, Trible sued the town's mayor (Bland.), the zoning adminis- <br />trator, and several other town officials. She claimed the town violated state law <br />and its own ordinance by letting 21 disabled people live on the property. She <br />also asked the court to declare the town's ordinance invalid because it alleg- <br />edly violated the state statute. Trible wanted the court to stop the town from <br />enforcing the ordinance and allowing the group home to operate. <br /> The c6iirt granted the town's request '~6 dismiss the case. The court found <br />the board of zoning appeals properly declined to hear Trible's case because she <br />filed it too late. (Because of this, Trible's claim that the town violated its own <br />ordinance by allowing 2t people was never addressed.) It also decided the <br />town could define a group home more expansively than state law did, but could <br />not exclude group homes. Therefore, the zoning administrator properly issued <br />the certificate. <br /> Trible appealed only the decision regarding the town's authority to define <br />group homes more broadly than state law provided. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The lower court properly found that the state law prohibited municipalities <br />only from excluding group homes. The law did not prohibit the town from <br />allowing more types of group homes than state law defined. The state law had <br />a family composition rule, not a maximum occupancy restriction. It defined <br /> <br /> <br />