The Lincoln City Council on Monday heard from both sides of a contentious issue: how the city should regulate collaborative living homes for people in recovery.
Proponents argued the proposed ordinance, which would fall under the city’s zoning rules, is too restrictive, creating barriers to providing the sort of affordable housing and peer support people in recovery need to succeed.
Opponents argued the proposed ordinance doesn’t provide sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of residents and prevent negative effects on neighborhoods, and that it caters to absentee landlords looking to make money.
Earlier this month the Lincoln-Lancaster County Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance that would govern how many unrelated people could live in such homes, parking requirements and how close they could be located to each other.
The ordinance would cap the number of residents living in a home at 10; requires collaborative living homes be between 500 feet and 1,000 feet apart from each other, and that they include one parking space for every two residents.
Councilman James Michael Bowers said he was concerned the way the proposal was written put an unfair burden on older, lower-income neighborhoods.
Zoning districts with lower densities, which typically have larger lot sizes, would allow fewer people; more people could live in a home located in a more dense zoning district — typically older neighborhoods in the city’s core.
“I don’t think it’s fair newer neighborhoods don’t have to show the same civic responsibility,†he said.
The Near South Neighborhood Association proposed several changes, and the Witherbee, Irvingdale and Country Club neighborhood organizations said they supported them.
The neighborhood associations want the city to create a clear system to evaluate requests by owners of collaborative living facilities who want accommodations allowing them to go beyond the restrictions in the proposed ordinance.
They also had concerns about spacing — which applies only to other collaborative living homes and not other group-living homes — and want some sort of enforcement and oversight process that goes beyond the city responding to complaints.
“We had genuinely hoped to support the city’s proposal but we’re not ready to support it as it is crafted now,†said Carmen Mauer, vice president of the Near South Neighborhood Association.
While some people testified that not having any oversight of collaborative living homes would be problematic for both people living there who don't get the support they need, and for neighbors, others said the residents were good neighbors and supported each other.
City officials spent several months crafting the proposed change following controversial City Council and Planning Commission hearings where owners of such homes sought reasonable accommodations from existing ordinances through the federal Fair Housing Act.
The Fair Housing Act says cities cannot discriminate against people with disabilities, and courts have said that includes those in recovery.
The city has approved several reasonable accommodations for such homes and denied one. The homes have either fallen under a national umbrella organization called Oxford House, or are owned by MAK Development of Omaha, which operates as Michael House.
City ordinances prohibit three unrelated people from living together in one residence, and the city has already carved out exceptions and set up requirements for domestic violence shelters, group homes and transitional living homes for people recently released from prison.
Collaborative living homes, also known as so-called sober living homes, are different in that they offer no treatment or therapy, have no licensing requirements or required supervision. Instead, the residents support each other and govern what happens in the home.
City officials have said many of the concerns raised don’t fall under the purview of zoning ordinances, which govern land use. Complaints would go to the city’s building and safety department and if a home were violating the ordinance it would be referred to the city attorney.
If the City Council approves the changes, property owners that apply for the conditional use and meet the requirements would not be required to go through a public hearing.
However, those property owners could apply for a reasonable accommodation to waive those requirements — something several people predicted would happen frequently.
“It’s a good start,†said Mark Brohman, who lives near the proposed collaborative living home that was denied a reasonable accommodation by the City Council. “I’m glad to have it on the books.â€
The council is scheduled to vote on the ordinance at its July 10 meeting.