Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

dents by requiring them to come "hat in hand" for permission to live like any other household. The floating zoning approach has the same problem. At the same time, local officials have a real need to make sure that the group home meets the needs of its residents, fits in with its neighbors, and blends in such that is it is indis- tinguishable from others. Questions that arise include access to transportation, appearance and scale, parking, and density of occupancy. Locational criteria such as these and others must be assessed either through a public re- view or by staff, Which approach to take along the con- tinuum of discretion is a difficult, even intrac- table, ethical, legal, and public policy decision. Ultimately, it may be politically necessary to have some discretion in the process. Given that residents may have cognitive or physical disabilities affecting mobility, it is especially essential to give special care to housing, building, and fire codes in the ad- ministration of any group homes program. One common issue is determining the "right" num- ber of residents permitted. Some of the federal courts have used a "rule of eight" allowing up to eight essentially as -of -right —but beyond that, supporting greater discretion by the lo- cal government. (Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F3d, 249, 253). Smaller group homes tend to be better integrated in single-family detached neighborhoods, while the larger group homes provide economies of scale, the opportunity for a higher level of service, and often peer support that is essential to some populations, such as those in drug and alcohol abuse recovery. Again, a hybrid approach al- lowing a range of levels of occupancy depend- ing upon the setting may prove to be the most advantageous strategy. For example, a group home in a single-family residence of not more than eight people including caregivers and managers might be as -of -right. Any home with greater occupancy could be required to have some type of formal review, perhaps site plan review at a public meeting, or a conditional use permit, or even a rezoning with a floating zone or overlay district. But it also may depend upon the context. Would it be necessary, for example, to require a public hearing for the conversion of an existing 10-apartment build- ing to a group residence for 4o people recover- ing from addiction? ONE REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE Almost three decades ago, the city of Ames, Iowa, the home of Iowa State University, found itself in a perfect storm of neighborhood inva- sions by college students, challenges to the traditional definition of family, the need to accommodate a variety of household types, and a state statutory mandate regarding group homes. Somehow, under the leadership of elected and appointed officials, including the then planning director Brian O'Connell, the community developed a comprehensive approach mitigating all of the impacts of the storm. I was along for the ride as a consultant to the city in developing the regulations. By developing definitions, of "family" (§29.201) and "functional family" 029.1503(4) (d)), Ames was able to prevent groups of under- graduates from taking over single-family hous- es and at the same time accommodate any seven Franciscan nuns who might choose to live in the city and any other groups of people that were truly functioning as a type of family, including extended gay and lesbian families with unrelated individuals and foster children (long before the right to same -sex marriage). Group homes ("Group Living"), defined in part as being "larger than the average house- hold size," were addressed consistent with the state statutes, while distinguishing them from An assisted living facility outside of "Household Living," considered to be "[rjesidentia( occupancy of a dwelling by a family," and the definition of family was made less restrictive. The regulations today have evolved in some respects from the initial ones first adopted in the early 199os, and they are better for it. One especially salutary aspect of this definitional scheme is that a group home for persons with disabilities with eight or fewer residents is considered a "Family Home" as defined in Section 29.201 of the Ordinance and in Iowa Code Section 414.22, and is treated like any single-family use. What is also interesting is how Ames conformed its local regulation with state definitions and requirements. The regulations are not perfect —no regu- lations are —and they should not be considered a model for adoption elsewhere without careful consideration. However, the city did a good job of reconciling competing needs and the regula- tions are worthy of consideration. THE ULTIMATE ESCAPE HATCH: `REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION' If a community does not have good planning and regulations, such that group homes are not readily approved and developed without discrimination, the FHAA requires that local governments provide a "reasonable accom- modation" for group homes with disabled persons (42 U.S.C. §6o4(f)(3)(B)). In the words of a federal appellate court: "reasonable ac- commodation provision prohibits the enforce- ment of zoning ordinances and local housing policies in a manner that denies people with disabilities access to housing on par with that of those who are not disabled" (Hobson's, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 Fed.3d 1096, 1.1.o4 (3rd Cir. 1996)). A reasonable accommodation ZONINGPRACTICE 6.16 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION i page 6