Proposed zoning requirements for collaborative, or sober living, homes that city officials say balance the interests of neighborhoods and those in recovery cleared a first hurdle Thursday.
The Lincoln-Lancaster County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the zoning changes, which would govern how many unrelated people could live there, parking requirements and how close they could be located to each other.
“No one person will say this is a perfect proposal but it does provide a balance on this topic and provides a pathway for approval we don’t have today,†said Lincoln-Lancaster County Planning Director David Cary.
The issue will now go to the City Council.
Several commissioners said the fact that some people felt the requirements fell short and others felt they were too restrictive indicated they'd struck a good balance, though some had concerns about the spacing requirements and a lack of oversight of the homes.
“This is not set in stone,†said Commissioner Tracy Corr. “If we get a year down the road and it’s not working we can change it.â€
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 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.
Several people opposed to the proposed changes testified about their concerns over that lack of oversight, citing both the safety of residents and controlling illicit behavior in the neighborhood.
Cary said he understood those concerns, but governing what happens in the home doesn’t fall under the purview of the zoning ordinances, which is about land use. Creating such oversight would likely involve other entities such as the state, he said. Some commissioners suggested the City Council could require some oversight.
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 if, for instance, they wanted to house more than 10 people.
The zoning changes would provide a starting point for commissioners and council members asked to waive those requirements, Cary said.
The proposal for collaborative living homes would:
* Cap the number of residents living in a home at 10, but it further restricts the number of residents based on the lot size and density requirements of different zoning districts. 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.
* Require collaborative living homes be between 500 feet and 1,000 feet apart from each other, with the city allowing them to be spaced closer to each other in more dense neighborhoods. However, there would be no spacing requirements from other group living homes.
* Require one parking space for every two residents.
The Near South Neighborhood Association proposed several changes, and the Witherbee, Irvingdale and Country Club neighborhood organizations said they supported them.
The most critical changes the neighborhood organizations wanted involved creating some sort of oversight mechanism, including other group and transitional living homes in the spacing requirements, and setting up a clear process for determining when those homes could waive the requirements.
Carmen Mauer, who testified on behalf of the Near South Neighborhood Association, said despite more than three months of meetings with stakeholders, the city didn't make any changes.
In the end, she said, the proposal will benefit absentee landlords who profit from collaborative living homes in their neighborhoods, she said.
“Given that the proposal today is unchanged after three-plus months of hard volunteer work. ... We must conclude that the city did not actually want our input for the value of its substance, instead they simply wanted the ability to say they had received our input, nothing more.â€
Others said collaborative living homes provide needed housing and support for people in recovery and the proposal is too restrictive.
Chelsea Egenberger, NeighborWorks community engagement director, said the city’s homeless population has doubled since last year and many of those people have mental health or substance abuse issues. Licensed providers aren’t always available — and peer support offers a good alternative, she said.
“We have a lot of needs in our community ... people trying to recover need different options,†she said. “I wanted to leave you with a question: Should the city define what a family is? Is that what’s best for Lincoln and Lincoln’s residents?â€
A Michael House located at 315 N. 35th St. is a collaborative living home for people in recovery, which the city wants to regulate through proposed changes to its zoning ordinances.