Chandler limits residents of group homes
With unprecedented speed, Chandler has approved new requirements for group homes after three votes in three days.
The City Council convened a special meeting Nov. 8 to conduct its second and final vote to approve regulations of the capacity and concentration of assisted-living, group homes and sober homes.
The City Council’s first vote on the changes came after a public hearing at its regular meeting Nov. 7. Both council votes were unanimous.
On Nov. 6, the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to support the proposed amendments. Commissioners Matthew Pridemore and Andrew Baron voted against them.
The changes limit the homes to five residents or fewer and require at least a 1,200-foot separation between group homes.
However, homes that serve disabled residents, which include those recovering from addictions, may request a “reasonable accommodation” waiver to serve more than five residents, said David de la Torre, principal planner with the city.
All homes would be required to receive administrative approval from city officials to operate, regardless of size. This is so staff can ensure that the home meets the fire code and look at whether the home would “create detriment” to the neighborhood, de la Torre said.
The changes were prompted by residents in the Cooper Commons neighborhood, who brought their concerns about the operation of a group home in their neighborhood to the City Council this summer when that home requested an expansion.
At the time, there were three group homes on the same block in Cooper Commons, and another has since begun the application process, de la Torre said.
In part because previous city regulations placed no limits on group homes with five or fewer residents, the homes were often clustered close together.
Of the 152 licensed group homes in Chandler, about 65 percent are within 1,200 feet — about two blocks — of another group home, de la Torre said. The majority have five or fewer residents.
Residents’ objective was not to eliminate group homes when they requested stronger regulation, but to “preserve the integrity of single-family neighborhoods,” Larry Hoffman, a resident of Cooper Commons, said during the council meeting.
Three representatives of group-home organizations spoke to the City Council on Nov. 7 to oppose the proposal.
“I think we can all appreciate the right to quiet enjoyment in our residential neighborhoods. ... Nobody can guarantee a good neighbor,” said Susan Archer, with the Arizona Coalition for Assisted Living.
“We believe it is a dangerous precedent to set to begin to restrict an individual’s right to live where they choose.”
Jeff Marsh, owner of J&J Sober Living, said he believes that the proposal was not properly vetted by involving group-home owners in the drafting process. The new ordinance could make the city liable to lawsuits and violations of federal fair-housing rules, he said.
The proposal had been vetted through several public meetings, Mayor Jay Tibshraeny said.
The changes, which eliminate a requirement that homes must go through a public approval process to expand to more than five residents, will bring the city closer to compliance with the federal rules, de la Torre.
“What this ordinance does is it explicitly requires the staff to take into account reasonable accommodations being requested for group homes that are for the disabled,” acting City Attorney Kay Bigelow said during the council meeting. “That is what the Fair Housing Act requires, and it is indeed what this does.”
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development remained neutral and could not speak directly to Chandler’s ordinance, spokeswoman Gene Gibson said.
In general, “local ordinances that have the intent, or even the unintended effect, of limiting the range of peoples’ housing choices may violate several federal civil rights/fair housing laws,” Gibson wrote in an email.
During the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Nov. 6, Pridemore questioned the need for additional regulations beyond those that addressed the separation of group homes and suggested that the commission delay a vote. That motion failed 4-2, with Pridemore and Baron voting in favor of delay.
Pridemore said the quick turnaround between the Planning Commission’s vote and the City Council’s “really bothers me,” and he disagreed with the changes addressing more than just the clustering issue.
Baron said that he did not have a problem with the proposed language but believed that it was being rushed.
Planning Manager Kevin Mayo suggested that the commission instead vote to approve the proposal or deny it and give the council suggestions for changes rather than delay the vote.
“Ultimately, this code change is at the direction of council and, ultimately, the time frame and compressed process in which we’re going through is a direction from council,” Mayo said during the meeting. “Simply a recommendation for a continuance will be troublesome simply because they are the ones that have identified the issue, the urgency, the draft code change and, ultimately, the process in which it’s going through.”