After many months of meetings, discussions, studies and the like, the Planning and Zoning Commission has sent a recommendation to Town Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in relation to group homes.

The Commission voted unanimously (6-0) at its meeting March 14 to forward its recommendation to the Town Council for possible consideration at its April 5 meeting.

At the March 14 meeting, Development Services Director John Wesley presented details and proposed wording to the Commission, followed by a lengthy discussion to hammer out additional requested changes. Wesley provided a copy of the recommendations to The Times noting that, as a first draft, changes will likely continue as the language of the amendments is refined.

“The Planning and Zoning Commission has been reviewing and discussing options for modifications to the Town’s ordinance requirements for group homes for several months,” Wesley stated in his introduction at the March 14 meeting. “At the January 2022 meeting the Commission heard from the public and then provided staff with direction as to language they would like to see in a revised ordinance.”

Those changes were made to Ordinance 22-01, amending Chapters 1, 5, 10 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide the definitions of family and community residences, the regulations for community residences, as well as the zoning districts where allowed.

The proposed changes were varied, beginning with modifying the definition of family to set the upper maximum number of unrelated individuals residing together in a home at four. It was also recommended the existing definition of “group home for the handicapped and elderly” be replaced with a new definition of “community residence,” which would include the subcategories of family residences and transitional residences.

Regulations

In his presentation, Wesley reiterated the fact that creating regulations for group homes has been a tricky needle to thread.

“There are a number of legal constraints that impact our ability to regulate group home uses,” he stated within the presentation’s risk analysis. “It is important that these legal parameters be considered in making any modifications to current language.”

Community residence regulations received the bulk of the attention during the March 14 meeting, with staff proposing to add language into Section 5.13 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide a comprehensive set of rules to cover this type of use.

Listed standards, as presented, tackled minimum spacing between such homes, the need to obtain a Town business license, if applicable, and more granular details such as a maximum of two people per bedroom and a cap on the number of residents living within these types of group homes.

Application requirements were also highlighted, covering everything from licensing requirements and property owner acknowledgment of use, as well as a description of the scope of services to be provided, a copy of liability insurance, floor plan and a copy of a state or third-party license or certification documents that provide contact individuals, “good neighbor” policies and “efforts to promote safety of surrounding neighborhood.”

The final pieces of the puzzle include requirements pertaining to registration for such a facility, as well as the process and requirements for waiver for reasonable accommodation.

Discussion

Throughout the evening, commissioners chimed in with additional changes they would like to see made to the proposed ordinance amendments before being sent to Council.

Commissioner Rick Watts, for instance, worried that the presented language would allow someone to “get creative” when it came to the number of individuals living within a group home. The limit of five to eight individuals was listed as “excluding staff,” which could leave the door open to dispute if someone living within the group home was also technically hired as part of the staff. The proposed change to close that loophole would be to alter the wording to “including resident staff.”

Another item gaining plenty of attention was the allowable distance between two group homes. The distance presented was 1,200 feet, but commissioners agreed half a mile, or 2,640 feet, was a better distance that, according to Chairman Peter Gray, has been repeatedly upheld against challenges elsewhere.

Related to the definition of a “family,” Gray also wanted to add additional language to anchor what fits under that umbrella. His suggestions were pulled from existing ordinances from other communities, and he felt the language inclusion would close potential loopholes.

The working addendum provided to The Times by Wesley includes the language, “Families are also characterized by sharing a single household budget and legal ownership or tenancy of the dwelling unit as evidenced on a deed or lease.”

Additional amendments included allowing Town officials to enter the premises for unannounced inspections, penalties to property owners rather than operators and certification that no outpatient treatment center licensure or medication distribution will be solicited or occur on-premises.

Following discussion and comments from the public, Wesley informed commissioners he felt he would be able to incorporate all requested changes into the amendments in time for consideration at the April 5 Town Council meeting.

Gray moved for approval with the stack of amendments included, with Dan Kovacevic seconding before unanimous approval.