Minutes - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996 - Public Hearing @ 7:55

Home

the primary care giver was not at home and they had no transportation. She concluded, "He's not really there as the care giver meeting the kids needs. I don't think he should be taken to eight." Ms. Fiala inquired as to how many homes Mr. McLafferty is currently operating, noting his claim to live in her neighborhood. Applicant Patrick McLafferty responded that he only operates one home. Ms. Fiala questioned whether there was any truth to Mr. McLafferty opening a home in Wisconsin. Mr. McLafferty replied, "Not yet." Ms. Fiala inquired as to who was the primary care giver in the home. Mr. McLafferty asserted that he was the primary care giver. Ms. Fiala inquired as to the longest time he has had 6 boy stay in the home. Mr. McLafferty stated he has had maybe 10 boys in the last year, one that ran away every other week. Ms. Fiala stated she knows Mr. McLafferty has someone coming in quite a bit. One of the Commissioners noted that this is hearsay. Ernie Larsen, 7229 I53rd Lane N.W. - noted he lives 350 feet from the applicant's property. He stated that within the last six months there has been one house sold and at least two others put up for sale in the neighborhood, and realtors have already posed the question, "Where is the group home?" He stated that although he couldn't assess what this will do to property values, he did know it will not increase their value. Mr. Larsen suggested a solution would be for Mr. McLafferty to reconsider this so the needs of the boys that are presently there can be met, but not adding to the problem and thereby disrupting the neighbors who have already made a sizable investment in their homes. Joann Johnson, 15333 Rhinestone Street N.W. - stated it was presented that this decision would follow the land, and she inquired if this was correct. Ms. Frolik stated that CUPs usually run with the property. Ms. Johnson stated "We have nothing against the family, but we do not want this to continue on." Attorney Fitzpatrick read the Conclusion of Law from the Order from the Court; a copy is attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. He also related these conclusions to the applicable Statutes; attached to these minutes as Exhibits B and C. Ms. Frolik explained again why this request is back before the Planning Commission, noting that the judge is looking for more substance to the Findings of Fact relating to a request for a CUP for two additional youth. Attorney Fitzpatrick did not feel decreased property value is a valid reason to deny. He explained that the State Statute was specifically written with the knowledge that most residents are not going to want one of these facilities in their neighborhood, therefore, the Statute makes it very difficult to deny these requests. The main concern to be addressed is the protection of the health and safety of the residents. Public Hearing/Planning Commission/May 7, 1996 Page 2 of 11