1993-08-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . August 25,1993 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 Mr. Hill asked why the representatives of Oxford House didn't approach the text amendment by adding "group home" to the Zoning Code instead of amending the definition of family. Ms. Alverson stated that she couldn't answer why Ms. Lever took the approach she did. However, this definition takes care of the situation too and would encompass the state definition of group home. Ms. Schuman stated that the proposed definition states "four or more persons living together" and therefore would go beyond the state's limit of eight people. Mr. Goldman stated that the state definition excludes recovering alcoholics and drug addicts from the definition of handicapped. Ms. Schuman stated that this is along the lines of what has been considered by the Plan Commission under the revision of the Zoning Code. She feels that the Plan Commission should be looking at how it will affect other issues, for example, elderly day care. She wants to emphasize that whatever is decided, density issues should be addressed. Mr. Goldman stated that there was no guidance from the court as of yet. Court guidance could be coming from the St. Louis case andlor the cases pending against University City. Mr. Marsh stated that he was hesitant to approve the amendment because it is too open-ended. Ms. Alverson stated that the limit on the number of people would be decided by the occupancy load of the house in which the "family" would be occupying. Mr. Goldman stated that the family definition serves the purpose of controlling neighborhood density. Without that definition there would be doubling up of families which is destructive to neighborhoods. Ms. Alverson pointed out that if the occupancy load of a home allowed it, a mom, dad and eight children could move into that house. Those eight children could all be in their twenties and thirties and drive cars. Mr. Goldman agreed that is permissible under those circumstances but it is not common. In fact, a check of the records for the past two years no occupancy permits were issued for ten people in one home. One reason for the family definition was to require a special use permit for uses with large numbers of people that could fit into a unit but were not a "family," for example: a dormitory, a fraternity house or a boarding house. The proposed type of occupancy is no different. If the Federal law requires the City to change the law to accommodate this use, it must be changed. The City is being sued because it is alleged that the City has discriminated because of the residents' handicap and has not accommodated them. Currently under the City's law there is no legal way to accommodate them without site plan approval as a dormitory or without amending the text of the Zoning Code and the Property Maintenance Code. Ms. Alverson stated that the only thing that must be done to accommodate them is to allow them to live there. Mr. Goldman stated that the City cannot allow them to live there with out breaking the law. Ms. Alverson stated that the proposed text amendment would allow the use without breaking the law. She feels that the amendment would be making a very narrow change for a limited group of people. Mr. Goldman stated that under the proposed family definition anyone who has ever had a problem with alcohol would be exempt from the family limitation for the rest of their life. Ms. Alverson replied that they would have to be sober for at least one year. m-B-25.plc