Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So, good afternoon. Um, it is Wednesday, March 4th, and this is it's 12:01, and this is the Athens City Planning Commission meeting, and I'm going to call the meeting to order. Um looking uh at the members that are present, we we have three members present. Two were un are unable to make it. Um however, the three member uh group that is here will constitute a quorum. So we will proceed with the meeting. Um, I will ask that anyone who um may consider speaking raise their right hand and uh confirm that anything that uh you present to the commission today is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and do that by saying yes I do. Thank you. Okay. Um the first order of business is to approve the meeting uh minutes from March 18th. Uh commissioners, I think everybody has those minutes. Has everybody had a chance to take a look at them? And if so, I will entertain any corrections or uh any additions if there need to be any. And if not, um I would entertain a motion to um accept them. So moved.

Second. Second. Okay. Any other discussion about them? Hearing none. Uh all in favor of approving the uh February 18th minutes, please signify by saying I.

I. Any and there's no no opposed. Okay. Um, as I look at the agenda, we we it it suggests we have no cases, but we have um the continuence of a residential care facility and recovery housing u draft language um information under communications. Um I I think it is possible uh depending upon the way the meeting goes that we we could vote on that and take it as a case today. Um, so we'll we'll see how things go. Um, I'd like to ask uh Mr. Riggs to go ahead and update us on u on what what language we've got presented to us and um and information that you had received back from the uh law director with regard to what we're proposing to do.

Sure. Before he starts, I think it might be valuable just for the record. Okay. to read director Lias's um uh letter into the record back to me into the record because because this is basically her response and it's basic while it's not a formulated as a as a legal opinion um it's it's her response that that is functionally a legal opinion right and and then coming out of this is the recommended modifications to the language that we have so do you want to read it or would you like me to read it or I'll I'll allow you to read ahead please do Sure.

Um, so, um, this was an email to me from Director Elias and you asked on behalf of the Athens City Planning Commission for me to review the legality of proposed changes to the Athens City Zoning Code Title 23 and Athens City Housing Code Title 29 to regulate residential care facilities and recovery housing residences. The planning commission wishes to recommend regulations for those entities that comply with federal law, specifically the Fair Housing Act and amendments 42USC uh section 364, the FHA section, and the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 USC section uh 12132 ADA. Specifically, the planning commission wishes to impose a density requirement for these residences pursuant to Ohio Revised Code uh 411201. Individuals recovering from drug and alcohol addiction are disabled under Ohio law. I reviewed your proposed changes, state and federal statutes and case law. Based upon that review, I made some suggestions in the document attached to this email. I believe my suggestions bring the proposed changes into compliance with the FHA and ADA. That's the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Residential care facilities are governed by Ohio Revised Code 5119.34 as to the number of residents in an R1 residential zone and multifamily zone. Ohio Revised Code 5119.341D recognizes a political subdivision that has enacted a zoning ordinance may uh uh zonance or resolution may limit the excessive concentration of licensed residential facilities. Based upon my review of the law, I recommend that recovery housing residences in an R1 residential zone house four unrelated residents. As Athens city code currently permits three unrelated individuals to live in a housekeeping unit in an R1 residential zone, the city cannot apply

the 1,00 ft density requirements to recovery housing residences of up to three unrelated residences residents because it would be treating disabled individuals differently than non-disabled individuals. There is no 1,00 ft density requirement imposed upon non-disabled individuals in an R1 residential zone. As a result, to impose a,000 foot density requirement, recovery housing residences must be granted a benefit that other housekeeping units are not, namely the ability to house more than three unrelated residents. So, so functionally, and that's that's the end of the note. So functionally what she's recommended is that by extending the benefit of one additional unrelated person to be in a in a recovery house residence that then gives us the ability to apply the density um the density restriction on this particular type of use because there's an extra benefit that's granted u by having one more person but then because they have that extra benefit we can then also apply uh the density there and that's that's the the basis of that. So, um, that was her her point. Um, I don't know, David, if you'd want to, uh, go through the specific changes, um, uh, under both zoning and housing or I can do it either either way. Whatever you think is best, sir.

You asking me? Yeah. Well, I um Why don't you continue?

Okay, that's fine. So, I I I don't mind. Um, you know, David, uh, you know, I I I met with the law director as we did this. So, if you look at um the previous u section, so I'm looking at page one of 24 um on the on the handout there. Uh and it talks about the 2304 permitted uses. So, um, staying in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code, um, we would, um, permit by zoning in R1's residential care facilities, uh, for up to five, uh, 1 to five unrelated residents, and they have to be licensed and expected pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 5119.34. And so that's that's where that preeemption keys in that the law director talked about. Um, and then we have a density requirement. Um, that density requirement should be at least 1,000 ft from any other residential care facility. And then recovery housing residences are the next allowed use in an R1. Recovery housing residences housing for unrelated residents um requires a valid rental permit and periodic inspection and requires proof of registration of the residence with the state of Ohio Department of Behavioral Health. And that density shall be at least 1,000 ft from other uh recovery housing residences. One of the things that we deleted was proof of the certification, the ongoing certification, and that was moved to the housing code in title 29. And and the reason for that, and David and I just had this discussion a little bit ago, is that you get one zoning permit. So, you come in and you get a zoning permit, and then you as long as you don't change the use of a house or use of a of a facility, you never go and get another zoning permit. But there's this 18-month certification process that um that uh people have to undergo through the Department of Behavioral Health to get a recovery house certified. They register it and then they they have up to 18 months to go through the certification process. So we will validate that that certification process has happened on the back end with the inspections because those

inspections happen annually. Um, so just like a rental, you get a rental inspection annually and you pull a rental permit annually. You would pull a recovery house permit, which would be just like a rental permit. We'd inspect it just like a a rental permit. And at that time, we can validate that someone has has met their requirements through the Ohio um behavior Ohio Department of Behavioral Health and that they've met that 18month or within that 18 month they got their certification. But I don't think it's we didn't think it was appropriate the law director as well to to put provisions related to that into the zoning code because that happens at the beginning. Did I did I capture that correctly, David? Yes. Okay. Question. Yes.

So in theory, somebody could apply, they could register. So that starts the ticking of the 18 months. They could go through an annual rental inspection if everything's okay with the permit. 12 months So, the 18 months could still be ticking when they come around for their 12-month renewal inspection. Could be. Could be. Okay. Does that sound correct? But then in the next second year, if they didn't do it, we you catch it. Yeah. Okay. Is anything else you want to with regard to changes? I mean, the same change was made in the in the B2. Okay.

So, it matches. Um and uh one of the things that we discussed last time was was the prohibition of residences on a first floor in a in a B2. And and you know our our thinking is that um these would would would be prohibited from having residences on the first floor in a B2 or a B3. So just like we treat any other uh any other place cuz um and this would be a residence. It would just be the the way the residence was. Um and then and there was the same changes on the R3, right? Correct. Yeah. Okay. Correct.

Okay. Um the other thing I think that came up last time and and we had some discussion about this was shared driveways. Um and I and I I do think we have a um like I don't know that I know that shared driveways were were the acute problem in the in the Madison situation that kind of brought all this to a head. Um, and I I think there is a place for us to check situations with shared driveways, whether it be uh recovery houses or whether it be rentals, because there's a number of them in in the city. Um, and in a lot of cases, what happens with those is that um there's a there's something in a deed that says this is how we're going to govern the shared driveway. What we could do and what we we probably should do is as a as a as a administrative provision within our our our rental inspection program um if a house has a shared driveway the the permit has to u provide uh some proof that there is an agreement as to how the shared driveway is going to be managed with the with the next door property. So, um you know, while it is a property owner to property owner issue, um I think that if someone is seeking a rental permit or a um a recovery house permit that they could we could we could make that an administrative check just like we do other administrative checks um related to off- streetet parking and and that sort of thing that there is some sort of agreement in place as to how that shared driveway will be managed.

Again, I don't think it belongs in the zoning code.

Okay. Okay. Well, one so one of the questions I have um is, you know, Yeah. So, I think maybe part of this um all arose out of the shared driveway and that that prompted uh some issues there. But it but it seems like that this has been um as part of the problem at least has been the um poor or lack of proper management of the facility by the um the individual or the organization that leased it. So, a lot of this doesn't really address any of that at all. Um, does the rental the the permit permitting process will that help with any of that or are we just relying on the state to make sure and then you know and if then somebody doesn't properly supervise it and we have a similar situation maybe where somebody builds an open fire in in the city and the you know and the neighbors call and the police come that then that's how this all gets attended or I mean I'm still a little concerned about the fact that I I think the changes we're proposing to make. I I I'm I'm pretty supportive of those, but I but I wonder have we gone far enough or is there any way we can go further or or should we go further? I I guess is part of my thinking on this a little bit. I don't know if anybody has any thoughts. I mean, I think we should definitely ask from an enforcement perspective on the on the housing code, you know, where the checks would be that would allow us to to go down this road.

Yeah. Typically, when we have um issues with long-term rentals, um we um we we do have a mechanism in place to uh to uh to work with correcting those those problems. There are um there are acute and systemic um issues you can have both with with landlords and you know uh something that you know is uh you know somebody that's having parties all the time that's that's that's something we we would address with with some of the regulations we have in place for our long-term rentals. Um, but if you have uh if you have a a problem that keeps coming up over and over and over again for specific houses or specific types of rentals, then we have a we have a our uh our uh notice of violation order to comply of title 29 that helps us control that. And we think that that would happen here probably as well. If we have continue continue to have issues, what would happen is is you have a violation, you uh notify the property owner or the tenant of that uh or the uh the uh facility of that violation, give them time to correct it. Um and then if they don't correct that, then we have do an order to comply with a time frame. If they don't comply with that, um then we would take legal action through the law director's office. And that's a that's a pretty standard um wellused system. Uh rather than trying to create a new system, that's probably what we would want to use, continue to use the same system that we've have in place for our long-term rentals.

And and I think we have to draw a distinction between housing code violations and behavior of residents. Um because we deal that all the time in in student rentals, right? I mean, you've got one problem which is is the is the housing up to the correct uh level of our standard prior housing code and that squarely sits on the landlord or the owner of the property to do that and that's the the process by which David is but things like solid waste violations are squarely on the the tenant right and we have another mechanism to do like when you when you trash the property um that uh that violation goes then to the to the people that live there crimes um you know by the people who who live there behaviors by the people who live with fires you talked about open burning you know that's a different section of code that isn't the housing code and and there's a different enforcement mechanism so you know I think a lot of times we conf conflate in the mind of the the mind of the the the public or or um at least this is something that we interact with quite a bit is you know there's there's the there's the property and and a property violation of our housing code or other elements of our code and then there's the behavior of the people who live there and that's um you know whether it be towards their neighbors and how do you you know which which is the right enforcement mechanism for those those various things does that did I

it um I I think too there there had I think early in our discussions I I I think uh it came up that there are a number of these um these recovery facilities ities in Athens um managed by different um um organizations that have been hired by the state to manage them and to the best of my knowledge we haven't had trouble we we've only had trouble with this next level organization um as they've moved in. Is that is that a fair assessment? Does anybody know? I

I have not had complaints from from other uh facilities that have been existing. We we did get complaints from um the facility that's operating at 51 Madison and 37 Lraine. Um those are the or 34, sorry, 34 Line. Those are the two um and those are both next level. Yes, they are. I think there are two registered um by the 511939 registration provision. There are two facilities that are registered in in the city. like when you look at that that list. Okay. Besides obviously, you know, obviously next level next level wasn't registered, but

Right. Right. Okay. Okay. So, um, my thinking is that, um, so there, you know, it it's, um, the, so it it it seems to me that there's a, um, we need to make sure that these organizations that the state hires are doing their job within our community, right, somehow, right? I would think. I mean, it just I'm that's the one thing that I'm I'm I guess I'm concerned about making sure that um you know, and obviously we'll catch it after it happens, but um I I don't know. Okay. I I'm not sure.

I like write a law to tell the state, right? I know I know I know where I'm going with that and that doesn't work, I guess. So, okay. Okay. I I I any any other uh discussion or comments about the changes we've proposed here um with the commission. Okay. And you you have nothing additional to add at this point. Okay.

So then I guess um uh is any does do we have anybody in the audience that would like to speak up uh on this particular topic and and maybe the proposed changes that have been uh um addressed here today? Anybody? Yes, ma'am. Name and address, please.

Uh, yeah. Thank you. Diane F. I'm the executive director of the Athens Hockey Venton Alcohol, Jordan Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board. Uh, we're out on Dairy Lane 7990. Um, I appreciate uh the commission and uh city staff's work on all of this and um and we're um okay with the changes that have been made. I think I do have a question though about um are we still talking about a certificate of occupancy for an R in an R3 zone?

Uh we are. I have to go back and look. I think that's because of the number of people um that because that kicks in. Okay. David, is that uh and we're okay with that.

So it starts the um Yeah, in the business. No, it's in R3. R3. R3. here. Now, the state um what they're trying to do here is just make it make sure that the these facilities are follow following state law that it's required by the state of Ohio. It's required by the Department of Behavioral Health to have a certificate of occupancy at a certain number of people. We're just trying to verify that that's that that's happened. Okay. And then but you're not requiring it for the R1. Is that correct? Correct.

That's Yes, that's correct. And then my question is because I think I I still don't understand the no more than three unrelated and housekeeping unit and how couples or more people in a household unit might be counted only as one person. Is there some way that um ironically you could have more people in an R1 house rather than in an R3 with the certificate of occupancy? And it's do are does this make sense? I I think it does. Um to that end though, any accord, correct me if I'm wrong here, David, but anytime that you're housing um a certain number of people uh in a in a house, the state says you got to you got to have a you know, whether they're married or not, says you got to have a a certificate of occupancy. Does that am I correct with that?

So, it's a certificate of occupancy is required by the state of Ohio for any structure um any structure that you build. Um, there are some exemptions. Ohio has an exemption for single family residential housing. Um, and I think they have an exemption for two and three family houses as well. So, it's it the state says they're required, but there's an exemption for one, two, and three family dwellings. Um, all commercial establishments require a certificate of occupancy from the state of Ohio before they're allowed to operate. And the state says that um those types of facilities with more than five people in them um are considered a a commercial enterprise or they're not they're not they're not single family residential anymore. So, anytime you have more for these types of facilities, the way I understand the state law for the Ohio building and the Ohio building code is that if you have six or more people that are living in a house, whether it's couples or or individuals, if you have six or more people that are living in that house, um they the state of Ohio requires additional um um additional stuff over and above what you'd what they would require for single a standard single family residential facility. Most of those would be fire and safety related.

And I think to that end, like I mean, you know, somebody has a single family home and they have eight kids in a R1, you know, completely permissible. No requirement for them to go um to the state of Ohio and get a certificate of occupancy because of that exemption. Um likewise, they don't have to put a sprinkler system in their house. Um they just have a lot of kids and and I think that would be something. So I I think um that that's kind of where you could have that situation, right? However, if you have six people or six units in one facility, you would require fire suppression. You would require a certificate of occupancy for that for that type of operation.

Yeah. Okay. I'm just kind of envisioning a scenario where uh four couples, four housekeeping units of couples are in that R1 zone and there's eight people, but they don't have to have a certificate of occupancy and that's allowed versus an R3 where uh five or fewer, you know, I I just I'm just not clear that I understand the logic be behind all of these different distinctions. So, um I think that's my only comment.

Is is it because and I'm I guess I'm questioning in my own head too. Is it because we don't require R1's don't require the certificate of occupancy? Correct. So we can't make that additional requirement on this because it would be described as putting undue regulations on recovery houses by putting that that's on I mean we don't do it for other we don't do it for others so we can't do it for them that's throughout the state of Ohio that exemption applies for single I think it's one two and three family housing that exemption applies there's no certificate of occupancy required by the Ohio building code so so to do it for the recovery be discriminating against this particular activity

be discriminating against them. Even though I hear what you're saying, the logistics could be that it wouldn't make sense. It it it also seems to me that one of the reasons um you know one of the reasons our residentials are exempted is because you know you're building or you're remodeling or you're doing whatever to that and you're going to live there, you know, and you're making decisions for yourself. Whereas in apartment buildings or something, you know, people are coming in trusting that the facility is safe and and and adequate to serve their needs. So, you know, yeah. So, it's um so actually, you know, putting eight people or um four couples in a R1 is almost like an apartment. So, I I could see where you're coming from as well. It's um I mean I I think it's all about safety. You know, as we were talking here, it's about, you know, does it require sprinkler systems to make sure that things are safe or alarm systems or or whatever. But I

I do think there is some on the to the point of the the hypothetical, right? The hypothetical of, you know, four unrelated people and we're counting couples as one person. you know, on on the back end, like if we're doing permitting on this whole thing, we number one, we inspect for uh what our housing code says bedrooms have to be. They have to be 70 square feet at a minimum. Uh they have to have means of egress and and so just because someone likes to think it's a bedroom in their in their owned house. Um when it's a rental, it may not be permitted to be able to be a bedroom. Um so

um like and that's that's been upheld over time and that's a life safety type situation. The second thing is um if we're going to go down this road, we'll enforce provide married licenses or marriage certificates like like you know just cuz you're you know boyfriend and girlfriend doesn't mean that you're you're still unrelated as as far as I'm concerned and we'll we'll uh we'll go down we haven't historically had to do that but I guess if we get put in a situation like this we'll we'll go down that road and so that makes that hypothetical I guess a little bit less likely. So any other community comments?

Alan Swank 40 Townson Place Far East Side U also Fourth Ward City Council. Uh John, I must say that I really appreciate the format that we have here today uh where people are able to engage the uh the members of the commission and thoughtful conversation. Uh sometimes I wish we could do that in city council committee meetings. Um several questions, several comments. Um, by state law, can we as a city say we will not locate these I'm talking recovery houses now. These this type of facility in an R1 neighborhood. Is there anything in the Ohio Revised Code that prevents us from doing that? In other words, can we limit it to an R3 zone? I asked that in the context of the houses that were referenced earlier that we currently have here in Athens. Uh we have um Good Works down on Central Avenue. That is not an R1 neighborhood, I believe. We also have

It's R1.

Is it R1? We have the Clim House out on uh Derry Lane, which is definitely not an R1 neighborhood. Uh we have one could make the case that we have the gathering place in the associated home next door and I don't think Congress is an R1 neighborhood at least Congress in Washington. But my question is is there anything in the Ohio Revised Code that would prevent us from saying no to R1 neighborhoods for recovery houses? Hey, you know, based on my discussions with the law director, um, and I don't if we're going to have the discussion back and forth, um, Ohio Revised Code 4112.01, individuals recovering from drug and alcohol addiction are disabled under Ohio law. So, in so far as we can say these disabled people can't live in R1's, yes, but but you can't, right? um because you're you're you know there's a protected class of disabled people and you're you're breaking you're breaking um federal law because Ohio law says that people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction are disabled. That's that's what I gathered from talking to law director.

So I fully understand that. So that camera in front of you is a house. We can't uh we can't prevent uh and we never would in my opinion want to prevent a disabled individual from taking up residence in that house. But we're talking about an individual. Here we're talking about that house accommodating a type of living situation where we could have up to eight people all with the same classification. So, I guess I would like a little further clarity on that and perhaps that's a question for the law director. That's a little bit different than an individual living in a house by themselves or a disabled individual as part of a family such as a disabled adult or disabled child. So, I I I would like a little clarity on that. Perhaps the law director could do that. Uh, Director Stone, you mentioned something about requiring marriage licenses. That was the second point. I think it would be prudent and I agree with you 100% we need to do that. that that be written into this, not a we're going to do it written in that this is a condition of securing that property for that purpose.

Go ahead. And I would I would ask do we have a another question about that then legally is we have a partner registry, right? So somebody can be they can be perhaps and registered with the city. Yeah. So I don't I you know my all the and I suppose that would be a mechanism you could you could because that never went away when we did marriage equality in the state but that partner registry still exists. So we could say you got to go register with that as a

your proof or what have you. Um but but um I the only other thing I would say is is we're talking about zoning. So it's a snapshot in time when you get a zoning permit and the people who live at a location on on day one are not necessarily the people that live at that location 3 years down the road. I think our existing facilities and I think Clemhouse is a perfect example. Um although that's in an R3 um it's not the same people on the day that they got their zoning permit that live there that live there today. So, it would have to happen during the the um the the rental permit uh process.

But you bring up an interesting point because as we know well know in many of these houses, it's a revolving door like the downtown department store at Lazarus and people are cycling in and out. The couple who may be married today may be replaced by two people down the road who aren't necessarily married. And how are we going to how are we going to track that? Right? That's a nightmare. We got to do it through 29. Yeah. We can't do it through 23.

That Yeah, that Yeah, but somewhere that needs to be tightened up or as we saw with this most recent organization uh like the people who uh build in the city right away and ask for permission later, that doesn't cut it anymore. That doesn't cut it anymore. Is there anywhere else in the state of Ohio where a married couple for what we're talking about today is considered one person or is that a uniquely Athens thing? is now cuz I think it's quite honestly crazy. Eight people's eight people.

I did a little research on that and OC chapter 4781 uh with regards to mobile home parks considers individuals as a family and an individual the same. Uh landlord tenant law ORC 5321.01 No one uh recognizes family or household unit and they consider the tenant and the and the household unit which is more than one person to be the same. Um OC 291925 domestic violence protections also talks about they don't see a difference between an individual and a family uh uh household member. And then finally long to long-term care facilities OC 37121.10 10. Um, a resident is defined as an individual patient, but the uh spouses have additional rights as associated with with uh that section of the OC. So, it's it's complicated, I think, is the answer. And there's all kinds of definitions and they're not they're not um they don't they don't all match together.

Yeah. And you're right, it's complicated. And uh I think one could make the argument those aren't four people, those are eight people. One of the reasons I believe we had problems with the two properties referenced earlier is that they were vastly different than the Clemhouse. They were vastly different than the Gathering Place and they were vastly different than Good Works. And the biggest difference is supervision and management on site around the clock. Can we write that into this that they need 24-hour on-site management? Because I think what that does is puts up a protection against bad actors. And none of the three that I mentioned could be classified as a bad actor. In fact, they're functioning contributing members of this community. So, could we write that in? Um, Mr. Kowski, John, you mentioned maybe moving this to a case today. I would uh hope you don't do that. And here are the reasons why. For those paying attention and read the agenda, they saw it as a communication. And if they had any concerns, they knew they would have a chance down the road when this became a case. And perhaps they wanted to hear the discussion that we're having today, consider it, talk with their neighbors, and decide whether to come or not when it becomes a case. As more and more people, now I'm putting on my city council hat. As more and more people are finding out about this, the more calls of concern and stops in the aisles of Kroger I'm getting from people And the thing that becomes the most

prominent in those conversations is something you mentioned earlier. You use the word safety, but you were talking about the building, fire extinguishers, sprinklers, and the like. But what people are talking to me about is the safety of the neighborhood. And one of the reasons that Good Works works so well and the Clim House works so well and the gathering place works so well, as I mentioned earlier, there is onsite supervision. And whoever was laying on the sidewalk down in Lraine was in an unsupervised facility and the people building fires in the yard unsupervised facility. And that's why I would like you to follow the normal process. have this come back in two weeks or four weeks or whatever the schedule is as a case so that those in the community who are concerned about safety would have an opportunity to speak with you either by email or phone in advance or standing here at the podium like we are today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, if I could address the the um Mr. Swang's concern. Number one, in your capacity as a city council person, since you address this is that and the and the chair that's going to bring this forward, all that plan commission does is recommend to your your committee changes to zoning code. The only difference is if you change it once it gets there, it's got to pass by a supermajority. So, uh if you want to tell us what you think it should say, um so that it's more likely to pass in its existing form when it goes forward, I would welcome that. Number two, um it's always bad law when you write a law specific to an event.

Um so, you know, usually a law named after a person is an emotional is is is an emotional law, right? So, like like what we don't want to do here is turn this into the 51 Madison law, right? I think we need to write a law or write a zoning change that that's the best thing for the city of Athens as opposed to the 51 Madison law. And so, you know, going forward, I think we want to try to keep that in our mind because that was the precipitating event that caused us to take this up, but write something that is correct for the whole for the whole city and and you know, you know, helps members of a community that need help, but at the same time protects neighborhoods.

Yes. a comment about the supervision because we do have a email that uh pler Megan Jennings shared with us that's from Brian Clark who when he checked AI chatbot and possible regulations said one of the items was require a 247 local responsibility responsible party contact and local agent so that doesn't imply in house on site right next level would probably argue you, if I'm remembering their testimony last or two weeks ago, said they had an on-site supervisor

in I think I thought they said they had one in Athens. Um, but they were out on 550, not now. Now they did say that um they identify a person or a couple a senior person or couple in the house that is in the recovery program to be the uh the the oversight of that that particular facility. So maybe when we craft the language we I don't know be careful like who's the house mom? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Someone's got to be the house mom. You got to list that on your rental permit. Yeah. I don't know. I I it's just a question in my mind.

Yeah. Yeah. Any any other comments? Please again name and address. Thank you. Thank you.

U my name is Anne Rubin. I live at uh on Maplewood Drive in Athens. And uh thank you again. Uh I did understand this was a communication today as Mr. Swank referenced and if it was changed at some point, the public should have notice of that. I've I've made notice sort of an issue here before, but I echo Mr. Swank on that. Um, I think we can all agree that poorly regulated h recovery housing gives the recovery housing model a black eye. um and that it's a concern because it also poisons the wealth for the nonprofit organizations that have been mentioned here today who may need to rely on private charitable contributions for their operations. So it it's an important thing uh what you're considering about today. Um I have a question about what is the necessity of the amendments. Um, it's not been driven, I think we established this before, it's not been driven by the city's comprehensive plan. It's not being driven by the affordable housing commission. Uh, I'm not aware that it's being driven by the Athens housing security co-create group that's been working on shelter issues around Athens or that the city conducted any specific needs assessment. And I think it was stated at uh one of these commission meetings that these amendments are a reaction to the appearance of these unregistered, uncertified, unregulated houses that cropped up in the fall of last year. And you know, for months, the city took no action to enforce the existing zoning and housing ordinance and instead now is

putting energy into rewriting and amending the city ordinances to permit them. You know, the city already has procedures and policies in place without amending the zoning and housing codes for individuals to seek and get either a variance or a reasonable accommodation based on disability. I think you in fact on your agenda put today that a phone number you can call to ask for the ADA uh coordinator for this city. So I assume there's a person with that responsibility here. Um the reason that process uh would be important to think about here rather than uh just a wholesale change to these zoning rules is because if you have a variance proceeding or a reasonable accommodation uh negotiation which happens under the ADA then it entails responsible entities to evaluate the underlying facts and weigh the competing interests. And it's a more individualized determination. And if uh you're looking at the fair housing u litigation around the state of Ohio or around the country, you'll see that these and you can talk with Lisa about this too. Uh these are highly factdriven um situations that are being evaluated in the courts and the city would be better served by having a process where you're looking at the underlying facts and weighing those competing interests. And it's it appears that this zoning law, the way that it's being written, is really issuing a blank check to anyone

who wants to come in and put in a recovery house. Uh so I have I do want to express my concern about that. Um there's nothing in this draft that addresses the short versus long-term occupancy in the same way that you have for regular rental housing. So there may be there are studies which show maybe 40% of people in recovery um relapse during the first two weeks of their recovery. So, um there's no consideration here about like relapse rates or um shortterm residents occupants versus longerterm housing, which you did take quite a look at in terms of how you've written the ordinances around short-term rentals, which require um a property owner to go through a a uh variance proceeding. So I I think it was Mr. Swank who talked about relapse rates, right? It's it it's it would be a very fact-driven situation. Again, um I guess my other comment is really I think it's extremely problematic that this draft leaves undefined how you count the number of residents. So, you've heard a lot of talk today about as a couple, one person or two people. I looked at the building code, which I think is incorporated into the Athens city building code, so it does apply and it talks about persons and persons are

defined as individuals. So, I I think that's something that you should be looking at pretty carefully. I understand there's a lot of definitions in various contexts, but it's problematic in this context not to say how you're interpreting how to count couples in shared housing arrangements. You're talking about having a single family residence, what's designed as a single family residence, accommodating multiple families essentially, and that is uh should be dealt with in some way that's clear to everybody to be fair to everybody. Um I wondered if there was a question about how to count staff on site in that four or more four people limit. So if you have a a resident manager who live is there 24/7 but they live somewhere else. Uh is that someone who counts in this four residences uh residents? Um, so I've talked about it implicates the building code and the occupancy requirements. It also uh implicates fire safety which is a concern for everybody in the room here. I think so. I think those are the the gist of what I wanted to talk about today. Thank you. My name is Jack Staer. I live on Elmwood. It's going to be a little hard to um follow the three wellspoken, well educated, well-informed uh folks that spoke before me. I have some

their education and their ability to speak properly is much superior to mine. their concern is no greater than mine. Um, I've written down some things. There's a couple questions in here. We may or may not have the answer today. It doesn't seem with the points that have been raised by the three folks that have spoken before me that this is ready to be sent to council because of the questions that weren't addressed by you folks and further questions brought up by the folks that spoke before me. I'm just speaking from the layman on the street with no formal education or legal education of course, but three people if you're allowing three people in an R1 zone in a student rental unrelated at this point, that's one thing. I think I understood that Mr. Stone brought up that we were going to bump that to four. So that would make possible the limitation of a distance in between the the um different houses. But um I'm going to jump around. Let me let me let me go through my notes and then um we'll see how it do. I'll do my best. I'm concerned for the entire city, but I

am extremely concerned, greatly concerned, mostly concerned to maintain our R1 neighborhoods. quality of life, meaning the comfort of the people who live in the homes that might be subject to one of these um two entities previously described being their next door neighbor or their across the street neighbor. So quality, I think the city needs to of course operate within the federal and state regulations. We have no choice there, I guess. But I think the city needs to fashion somehow legislation or rules um or codes that give us as a community a grasp on what can come forward. The folks that have been serviced by U. Miss Fa and the 317 board and Timothy House have apparently all been doing an adequate fair job for our community. And I'm not aware of any problems at any of those places in the past. We've already got a little taste in four short months on the Madison Avenue thing and a shorter period of time on 34 Lraine of what can happen when you don't have proper management or proper oversight. Now, in regards, let me I'm jumping around, but you're going to have to sift it out. I thought I was under the impression

when we was talking about the short-term rentals or the Airbnbs that came to town that it started and then we said, "Well, you have to have a local person to oversee this." And to jump around further, I think when Miss Jones was speaking at the last meeting uh or maybe one of the uh senior groups or the couple that was oversight was that they had some supervision during the day, but these folks were on their own at night. You know, there's the safety factor. There's a safety for the citizens. There's a risk to the citizens. There's a risk to all the neighbors. There's a risk to the police the police department. Um, you know, that that was in regards to the 51 Madison thing where they sent a convicted felon down here. As I said in a previous meeting, that's one thing. They sent a convicted felon down here with an outstanding warrant. Um, and when you read the fine print in some of those documents, after they had him locked up and after they had him in jail, he bit the end off a correction officer's finger. Now, I think we need to know who's coming into our town. And it I'm not singling out next level. I'm just talking about the big picture of whoever's going to try to come to town. and and and set up shop. I think like Mr. Swag said, there's going to be people coming. There's going to be people going. Somebody's going to fall out in a week. Somebody's going to think they're all all healed and move on in a week or a

month or or a year or whatever. But if we don't know who's in the house, we don't know the character of who's in the house, we don't know what their past is, we don't know what their proven capabilities are to um inflict bad scenarios on our community. Desperate people have desperate ways and um failing treatment is as we all know around 70%. But anyway, at the last meeting I suggested that you guys consider the distance between houses. I think 1,000 ft was uh mentioned at that point. I think when I was talking to Mr. stone yesterday that um the mayor that apparently he had communicated with the mayor and the mayor had mentioned 1,200 ft. When I talked to Lisa, she said the state law said there is no distance written down, but there could be case law and that she would research that. Now, how that turned out, I don't know. But I also ask you to consider lot sizes because there's a lot of these neighborhoods where the houses are very close together. But in regards to my bringing up the possibility of them inspecting or checking for lot sizes, Lisa said she was not asked to research that possibility. and in between houses. She was not asked to um in between houses, not I mean houses next door to each other. I'm not talking about the,000 ft or the 1200 ft. In regards to the shared driveway, when speaking with Mr. stone yesterday. I got

the impression that there would have to be a written agreement between the shared driveway property owners that they both were um happy with an arrangement or an agreement and it was a document that had to be signed by both parties to be effective. and um amable amanable to both parties. We haven't talked about how many total of these houses are going to be allowed total in an R1 zone. We've talked about a distance that's not been solidified yet, I guess. But say in an R1 zone, how many are we going to allow in an R2 zone? How many are we going to allow? I'm mostly concerned with R1. Now, if you're going to have these people down here in these houses, it would it would seem besides having a registry. So, you know what? So, the police chief knows so the citizens know if they inquire how many felons we've got or if we've got felons. What if what if they send robbers down here or somebody from armed robbery? What about a pedophile next to a house with people with little kids? I mean, we don't know these people that are coming to these places if they're court ordered to go to rehab or to jail. We should know these things. Are they going to have drug testing? Clearly the one company said they are not.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stopper. Um, can we restrict these things from our ones? Does anybody know? Yes. I could try to answer that. This is a legal question. Um, OC 5113.341 um requires licensed residential facilities to be treated as a permitted use in any residential zone. So, we can't say you're not allowed to be in in a residential zone. But that's a residential care facility. Uh, it looks like some from and again this is a legal question. 34 versus 39. I mean, that's the same issue that we kind of circle back on.

Yeah. 341, right? Um says that you you can't limit those and there's there and communities that are trying to do that are are getting are getting um legal action taken against them. So, what we're trying to do right now, I think we have to permit them just like we did we would permit any residential uh uh long-term residential rental. Well, the residential care facilities are different than recovery houses and they're defined differently and that I mean we could look at we just throw something at the wall and see if it sticks and if we lose we lose. That's yes, that's one of the things that's

of note there is one existing registered certified recovery house in the city of Athens right now in a residential zone and in an R1 zone that would now presumably be grandfathered if we change the zoning and it would it would stay from a savings clause perspective, but something like that couldn't exist anymore if we if we completely zoned it out. Do you think this is I mean we I think we took this up because the acute problem about land use that came with the the people that um you know the people that that started you know operating a facility that you know didn't really fit with any of our existing zoning and so that's why we we brought up to talk about I right

you know was it premature I don't know that's kind of where comment with this too. I would share procedurally. So today we're discussing it as a communication. That's Yes. And so I would say that if we wanted to move it to a case, we'd have to vote to do that.

And is moving it to a case. So here's my question. We moved it to a case that would be potentially two weeks from now. we could go back and resolve some of these or look in further at some of the questions that have been raised today. Would that give and but then we would publish the notice. We're looking at it as a case. It still gives opportunity for the public to come in and respond as they have today. Correct. If we didn't move into a case

Yeah. I the only thing I would ask is is I guess people that are very concerned and and there's folks here that are very concerned, right? Um to send written comment on the existing proposal to us because it's very very difficult to hear, you know, the host of um of concerns. It would be helpful to say, hey, on section, you know, page two where it says this, you know, what did you think about this? And that would be really really helpful for us to move this forward you know as opposed to trying to discern all the different um contexts I think. I don't know as Mr. Mr. Chair

I would agree with that. I would agree with that because I think um you know sitting here right now I don't you know I don't know what kind of changes we would want to make to this that what is being proposed in total. Yeah. I mean there's a lot of rhetorical questions and I'm not being critical. I'm just saying you ask questions. So provide suggestions. uh if you think there should only be you know one per R1 zone say change the density to one per R1 zone the east side gets one the north side gets one but you know that that is an option from a density perspective um that's what we did with um cannabis

yeah did we do we do it with cannabis in the Bzones specifically so I mean that that would be another way to regulate density so I mean we could go that direction um if there's changes to the to the 29 housing code from a permitting perspective. Um like additional requirements in conjunction with a permit um for ongoing operations because kind of back to our earlier point about um you know there's there's zoning which is a onetime thing to say whether you can or can't do something at a at a site.

And then the ongoing thing is your permit that goes forever which is the like the rental permit but this these would be permitted as well. And that kind of gets more into the behavior of the operator and then behavior of the the the tenants. um that are there. Uh go very very quick.

At the end of the day, the discussion of all these particulars of how, when, why, and all of that, in the minds of people that I've spoke to, and I say this with all due respect, is totally irrelevant. That's not the issue. The issue is locating recovery homes in R1 neighborhoods. Period. And Mr. Stone asked the question which I asked and I agree. These are not residential care facilities. My mother is in a residential care facility. It is not a recovery house. They aren't even the same animal. But at the end of the day, the issue for the residents I've spoken with is should these even be allowed in R1 zones? I mean, we could we could try zone it out and then and then see where the chips fall.

And do do we before we do that, do we talk to uh request Lisa to Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Okay. She might say no. Well, you know, I mean, well, yeah, she might. That's I love our law director, but an attorney is is provides an opinion, right? and and they're they're an adviser just like I mean the city has to decide what's best for it and if it loses in court it loses in court. So we can try it sounds like the feedback you know that we're getting from the constituents at least that are concerned about it is we don't want them in our zones period. Yeah. Short comment please.

I just I just want to be on the record of saying a few meetings back I think I've said it at city council. I think I've said it it here. I suggested a well publicized city community meeting where the general public we all know or I think we all know that 70 80 90% of the citizens are just out here living their life. They're paying no attention to what's going on in in government and a few of us are paying attention. though. Generally speaking, most of the citizens of Athens don't know anything about this. They weren't a victim of Madison. They weren't a victim of Lraine. They don't watch city council meetings. There has not been one word in our last published um newspaper. There's not been a press release from the city. There's been no coverage from the press. Most people don't know about this. I think if the general public was aware of what our situation is and what the situation, our first little dose was, I think at least a number of citizens would have the nerve and uh fortitude to step forward and speak to give you folks and the city council folks a better understanding of what um Mr. Sway and an and I are very adamant about which is I'm not speaking for them I'm speaking for me about the safety and the comfort of living in our town of what we're used to and um I think I think you need to do something

to get more people aware. I think Lisa needs to be consulted again about some of the points that I brought up and and um what these other folks that are more educated and well researched than I brought up. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I I would I would say I I'm going to lean on what what uh Mr. Stone said. anybody here or anybody in the audience if they would like to send a note I'd ask them to email um to uh the um code uh code office any any proposed changes and then he can get it out to us but sorry but uh to to so that we can we can look at these things and compare them to what we have here. I I think that's real important. And then and then I'd like to um uh make a motion that um we ask the law director to review whether she feels like we would have any grounds for uh restricting it from our ones. So I'd like take that motion. Second.

All in favor? I Okay. Where can we find a uh a copy of the current proposal? When uh we got the notification that goes out to many people in the city, all it listed was the minutes, Lisa's letter, no added to her letter, and I didn't see the uh So, where could the general public access to provide those comments to Mr. Riggs? Where would they get that? It didn't go out. Everything that you have there went out. Do you have it? I have extra. Is our system broken? It should be a 30-page document. Yeah, Lisa's Lisa's addendum was not in there. I didn't see that.

The thing I read. Yeah, I I saw her letter was there, but I didn't see the addendum, but I could be wrong.

Yeah. Okay. So, this uh so this part here was uh was sent out via um whatever. But the one thing that was missing was the attachment to to Lisa's letter. I could have said it in front of it directly from my post. Yeah. But it but it's part of the packet, the big packet that you Yeah. No, here's her letter and it says one attachment, but there's nothing. Oh, the attachments before it. The attachments in in your agenda, your big packet that would have been published. Is that correct? Yeah, it's it's the same thing. Yeah, it says page 1 through 21, 2 through 21, 3 through 21. It's the track changes version of the Right. Okay, great. Thank you.

It just it just is behind it's in front of it rather than behind it. Okay. So, yeah, get this.

Okay. Okay. So, so we'll seek um uh opinion about eliminating um uh eliminating trying to restrict these from the R1 zone, these recovery facilities. Um so, we'll seek that. will look for input from the people that are here, written uh input from the people that are here and also from anybody in the public watch out out watching this right now or for that matter anyone you tell that they should do that. You know, we'll take written input on what we're proposing here. Um is the uh so so my sense is as as this is gone this will remain a communication today and we'll look to possibly bringing it forward at the next meeting as a a case but uh only if we get the input and are able to uh take a look at that and publication. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Um anything else with regard to this communication? Okay. So, um, reports. Mr. Riggs, do you have anything additional to report? I do not have anything, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And Miss Jennings, do you have anything to report today? No, I don't.

Mr. Stone, anything that you're do you have any thoughts on report of any kind from Okay. Um, so then the next item on the agenda is opportunities for citizens to speak about items not covered by the agenda. Anybody want to speak? Okay. Are there any other announcements or other business that we should entertain today? Chris, did you want to talk at all about the um data centers? I know you've sent a couple things out. We haven't made it a We haven't made it an agenda item, but maybe when we resolve

this this case that maybe we could move forward the data center as part of the communications. I know that Mayor Patterson wanted to bring forward some material that he had from national perhaps national league of cities. So if we could see some of those documents in writing to have you know to to begin to shape the discussion that would be great. Sure. And I think, you know, I read the the articles that you shared from the dispatch. I'll make sure that the planner has them and and can, you know, kind of look at, you know, what communities are doing and what successes successes are the right word. But the way people are grappling with this, you know, I mean, I really think the the two big issues are power and water consumption

number one and then number two, um, you know, land use that that is, um, maybe ends up, um, pushing out other land uses that are desirable. Um, so I think those are the uh probably the big things that we'd want to we'd want to talk about. Thank you. And so would have valuable resource information too. Our gas and electric aggregation companies. That's a good point. Two other sources. Good information. Thank you. Okay. Um, so if there are no no other announcements or other business, then um I'll move that this meeting be adjourned. It's 1:12. Thank you everybody. Um, and hopefully see you in two weeks.