04/08/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to State and local land use and health and safety laws, regulations, practices or decisions tliat discrimiuate against individuals with handicaps. State and local governments have authority to protect safety and health and regulate use of land, and that authority has been used to restrict the ability of the disabled to live in these communities. This act is intended to prohibit that application of these land use regulation including conditional use or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence and community of their choice. He explained that the Moran's have raised their children in tlus home, and it is large enough to accommodate sixteen individual members with separate bedrooms. Under the Federal Fair Housing act there is an obligation of the City of North Olmsted not to disciininate and also defines discrimination to include a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such a person an equal opportunity to use a dwelling. These reasonable accommodations have included the granting of special use permits. Case law has struck down some requirements such as fire sprinklers, etc. because they would have interfered -with and were not uecessary for tlie safety of these individuals. He has provided the Law Department with iuformation on Smith and Lee Association, Inc. versus the City of Taylor case, and believed that it would not impose any undue hardship or burden upon the City of North Olmsted or its residents to grant the conditional use permit so that the Moran's can have up to sixteen unrelated individuals residing with them as their license which they will be obtaining from the State of Ohio will permit. Mr. Moran advised that from an economic. standpoint it is not feasible to operate a group home profitably without having sixteen residents. Therefore the request is made of a maximum occupancy of sixteen people, as was stipulated on the original application. Chairman Tallon questioned if the maximum number had to be sixteen, since he thought that Mr. Moran had requested eight originally. Mr. Moran believed that Mr. Tallon was incorrect, and asked him to check the records; but he reiterated that it would take sixteen to make a profitable venture. He presented a proforma which. illustrated what he had just stated. The members studied the proforma. Mr. Koeth questioned if this would be sixteen people plus his family, and Mr. Morau stated that was correct. Mr. Tallon stated that according to the proforma, he would need 14 people to make a profit of $1,024.00. Mr. Moran stated that there would be a marginal profit at 14, but it maximizes out at sixteen. At siacteen it would be $3,167.00 per month. Mr. Tallon verified that this was a for-profit business. Mr. Moran agreed and stated that the Zoning Code did state that a business could be operated in a home beyond being a professional person. It was clarified that the clientele was referred by various agencies in the county. There is different ways of being paid, some people are supported by their families, some have their own assets, some are referred by MRDD. Mr. Moran clarified that he was subsidized by no one, but some of the residents could be subsidized by some agency. At this point Chairman Tallon asked Assistant Law Director Dubelko to speak. He advised that Mr. Kramer had made a good presentation, and perhaps if he had been he present at the January meeting the commission might have been on the right page with this proposaL Unfortuuately, he did not agree with some of Mr. Moran's statements. It is not txue that anytlung other than home professional offices are permitted in a single family residential zone, and the code is clear on that and this proposed use would not fit under that. This is a proposed adult care facility, it is not permitted as a matter of right in a* single family zoning; under State law these types of facilities must be permitted in single family district if they have no more than five residents, and must be permitted in multifamily if there are from six to sixteen. However, there is the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and there have been cases decided .under. it. The most important is the Smith and Lee versus the City of Taylor, Michigan which held with what the statutes state, that municipalities must make reasonable accommodation for the handicapped to allow them to live in single family residential neighborhoods if they demonstrate that necessity. There is a burden on the applicant who asks for the accommodation, to show that there is a necessity for that accommodation. He stated that when looking at the need to accommodate, it is not looking at site specific, it should be looked at as a general area, that is what it 3.