02/13/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -. / ? 'I presentation, and the audience members may respond afterward. Attorneys McIntire and Ebert explained the proposaL Mr. McIntire advised they are not seeking any variances in connecrion with construction, as the house is already existing and the variauces were granted when the house was coustructed. He noted, the house is set back approximately 200 feet, which is a significant setback from the street as well as the rear building lines of the adjacent neighbors. W. McIntires' understanding was variances are required in conjunction with the conditional use process. He elaborated, the side yard setbacks are slightly more restrictive with the proposed use as an adult care facility. Mr. McIntire explained the nature of an adult care facility, as defined under Ohio Revised Code, section 3722. There are two types of adult care facilities the Adult Family Home or and Adult Group Home. Au adult family home may accommodate three to five unrelated adults, whereas in an adult group home six to sixteen unrelated adults is permissible. Mr. Mclntire advised they are asking for an adult care facility that will accommodate nine people, wluch by defivition is an Adult Crroup Home. He noted the facility will house handicapped individuals. Mr. McIntire explained, by statute, au adult care facility is not the following: hospice; nursing hoine; residential care facility or home for the aged; a community alternative home; an alcohol or drug addiction program home; habilitation center or residential facility for the mentally ill; methadone treatment center; or a residential facility for mental retardation. He further advised these are people that are marginally handicapped and need some assistance with their lives. The department of health licenses people that operate these homes. According to statute, Mr. McIntire noted an adult family home is a permitted use for an adult care facility in a single family residential district. The adult group home, however, is a permitted use in a multi=family residential district as noted in the statute. Mr. McIntire explained, the statute further clarifies that the homes may be required to comply with area, height, yard, and architectural .= compatibility requirements that are uniformly imposed upon all single family residences within the district. He elaborated, this means any standards that are applied to a group home or family home -.• must be consistently applied within the district. Mr. McIntire advised, as handicapped people, these people are also subject to the Federal Housing Act amendments of 1988 which prohibit - discrimination on the basis of handicap. Mr. Moran's mother operates a similar facility in Westlake. Mr. McIntire believed this proposal will preserve tlie residential character of the neighborhood. He noted Mr. Moran raised seven children in this home. Mr. Ebert advised that traffic would be minimal, the safety concerns have already been met, and no changes in zoning are needed as, by statute, this is a permitted use in a residential area. As Mr. Moran had nothing further to present before this meeting, the neighbors were given the opportwuty to voice their concerns. Mr. Bruechler stated a group home does not belong in this single family residential area. He believed this type of facility should be in an industrial or commercial area. Mrs. Bruechler wondered if there could be any assurance that this would not be converted into a halfway home. Chairman Gomersall believed there are plenty of zoning laws that would prohibit this from happening. He clarified this is not being rezoned, however there are certain variances required because of the proposal change in use. Mrs. Dingess was concerned because the first letter states tlus is for a senior citizens group home, however the request has since changed to an adult group home. Mr. Moran advised the city made an enor on the first norice, as his request has always been for an adult group home. Mr. Dingess advised she is a registered nurse and if these people are handicapped they will need an elevator. In her opinion the variances, as well as the conditional permit should not be granted. Mr. Gomersall clarified this board will not rule on the conditional use permit. Mrs. Dingess was concerned that a parking lot might abut her property on the north -side. She clarified five of Mr: Moran's seven children never actually lived in this home, but only visited on occasion. Her husband, Mr. Dingess, did not see how this type of facility could be permitted in this resid=tial district. He believed this ' home would be dangerous to-the handicapped _people that will= live here, as there are no fire extinguishers or elevators. Mr. Dingess was adamantly opposed to this proposaL Mrs. Eccleston advised she is against all these variances. Mr. Klimkowicz explained eight years ago, when the house