Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by disabled

Table B refers to "single family dwelling" as use unit 6, as you say.  However, the change in the definition of family proposed by the ordinance applies to the entire Title 42, not just the use unit 6. This is also true for the newly changed definitions of "community group home" and "neighborhood group home."  I am not sure how a household that will no longer meet the new zoning code's definition of "family" can be consider a "single family dwelling" and therefore be entitled to use unit 6 by right.

The last sentence in the new code-wide definition of family, reads as follows:
"Individuals not related...occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site...nursing care...shall not be considered a family as defined herein."

One person with a live-in nurse is defined as NOT a family. Therefore, how can they be entitled to use unit 6 as a "single family dwelling" ?  This might not be what was intended, but there's a drafting problem.

As to foster homes, you are probably right, unless live-in nursing care is provided. In that case, someone could argue that the residence is now a group home.

Interesting parsing you are doing there.  Look at the whole sentence:

Individuals not related by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site institutional education, training, supervision, medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family as defined herein

Granted, it would be helpful to define institutional care, but it is used elsewhere in the zoning code, and it is generally understood.  Under definitions already enacted, assisted living facilities is defined as living arrangements with residential, as opposed to institutional, type care.  The intent is to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, and prohibit institutional-styled living arrangements.  So you can homeschool your unrelated kids at your house; you cannot run an educational institution; you can have a live-in nurse; you cannot have a small hospital.

I'm not following your first paragraph, but both community group homes (which are already in the zoning code) and neighborhood group homes specifically exclude from their definition anyone that otherwise qualifies as a family.  So if you qualify as a family (if you have 6 or 4 less unrelated individuals), you cannot be a community of neighborhood group home.

[sgrizzle]

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain.

Another reason this thing should run it's natural course, instead of, as the author of this thread proposes, pass it to smite MHAT.

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow
 

The Council should have moved to pass this on principle alone given MHAT's past behavior.

I don't understand why people think zoning codes should be easy, or punitive.  I certainly don't believe that any persons half-baked idea should be added to zoning.

[disabled]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by disabled

Table B refers to "single family dwelling" as use unit 6, as you say.  However, the change in the definition of family proposed by the ordinance applies to the entire Title 42, not just the use unit 6. This is also true for the newly changed definitions of "community group home" and "neighborhood group home."  I am not sure how a household that will no longer meet the new zoning code's definition of "family" can be consider a "single family dwelling" and therefore be entitled to use unit 6 by right.

The last sentence in the new code-wide definition of family, reads as follows:
"Individuals not related...occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site...nursing care...shall not be considered a family as defined herein."

One person with a live-in nurse is defined as NOT a family. Therefore, how can they be entitled to use unit 6 as a "single family dwelling" ?  This might not be what was intended, but there's a drafting problem.

As to foster homes, you are probably right, unless live-in nursing care is provided. In that case, someone could argue that the residence is now a group home.

Interesting parsing you are doing there.  Look at the whole sentence:

Individuals not related by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site institutional education, training, supervision, medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family as defined herein

Granted, it would be helpful to define institutional care, but it is used elsewhere in the zoning code, and it is generally understood.  Under definitions already enacted, assisted living facilities is defined as living arrangements with residential, as opposed to institutional, type care.  The intent is to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, and prohibit institutional-styled living arrangements.  So you can homeschool your unrelated kids at your house; you cannot run an educational institution; you can have a live-in nurse; you cannot have a small hospital.

I'm not following your first paragraph, but both community group homes (which are already in the zoning code) and neighborhood group homes specifically exclude from their definition anyone that otherwise qualifies as a family.  So if you qualify as a family (if you have 6 or 4 less unrelated individuals), you cannot be a community of neighborhood group home.

Even without the parsing, it is wholly unclear that the adjective "institutional" applies to anything beyond the word "education."  Regardless of one's view of the policy behind this ordinance, something this poorly drafted with the potential to affect literally thousands of Tulsa's most vulnerable citizens needs to retooled (or preferably ditched entirely).

[Hometown]

You know, these days with expenses the way they are you will sometimes find a group of "roommates" living together in order to manage the expense.  In San Francisco it wasn't ununusual to find 6 or more unrelated middle class people sharing a flat.  Since Zillow characterizes Tulsa as "low-income with high-rents" that's probably the case here too.  Are roommates exempted?

I'm a supporter of the Mental Health Association here.  We gave them $300 last year.

[sgrizzle]

Hometown
Proving that people who care about Tulsa actually DO more than just complain on the internet since 19(however)

[Neptune]

I never complain.  



I'm just an overtly malicious person.

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

If it doesn't touch all group homes then I think it is discriminatory.

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by jamesrage

Doesn't Tulsa have sparsely populated and undeveloped areas of town that these shelters can be built at? It seems to me that these areas should be considered first before they weasel their way into neighborhoods.

The people need to be closer to services, etc.  When you don't have a car things like your location can make a big difference.  Places like this can really help people keep on their medications and that can improve their ability to hold jobs.  If you don't want anything built in your back yard then I suggest you move into a backyard with something already there!

[PonderInc]

Takeaways:

Our zoning code IS overly complex and incomprehensible...understandable only to a handful of lawyers who dedicate their lives to understanding and/or profiting from it. (There should at least be a "Cliff's notes version for the average citizen!)

Tulsa does not have enough transit options, and most of our zoning complaints/conflicts ultimately come down to traffic and parking!

Some folks won't let actual facts get in the way of a firmly held opinion.

Pmcaulk is a very patient human being.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

Yes I did and with the digital billboard ordinance we didn't have near 100 posts trying to figure out what the subject of the ordinance was. Here we have a loose name "group home" and a laundry list of exceptions that aren't defined in the text of the proposal. It seems that for any instance where the proposal would be a horrible idea, there is just a suggestion that "somewhere those are excluded."

Come on, congress passed a law that that would've shut down every consignment store and craft show in the US but I'm supposed to trust that CoT fully thought this one out?

[disabled]

Welcome to Our Neighborhood! except for group homes, homes where anyone is disabled, apartments for the mentally ill, alternative schools, community gardens, any family of 4 with one other unrelated person or child, two co-habiting adults with 3 kids between them,....

The question isn't Who Owns Tulsa, but who owns your right to live where you want, and the answer, apparently, is your neighbors (or the board of adjustment, or your city council),but not you!

[disabled]

Welcome to the Neighborhood, Part 2

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8ie37mgxIXA/R1YcA_6HEcI/AAAAAAAACSE/eLdnpakdJ9M/S300/scram.jpg

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

Yes I did and with the digital billboard ordinance we didn't have near 100 posts trying to figure out what the subject of the ordinance was. Here we have a loose name "group home" and a laundry list of exceptions that aren't defined in the text of the proposal. It seems that for any instance where the proposal would be a horrible idea, there is just a suggestion that "somewhere those are excluded."

Come on, congress passed a law that that would've shut down every consignment store and craft show in the US but I'm supposed to trust that CoT fully thought this one out?

My point has been that most of these issues that you say are confusing are already present in the zoning code.  Women's shelters, foster homes, community homes, etc.... are already treated differently in the zoning code.  Families are already defined as 6 unrelated people.  Certain uses already have spacing requirements.  Based upon your reasoning, because our zoning code is so complicated, we should never change it.

This ordinance probably won't get adopted.  But you will still find the same confusion.  Say you wanted to provide a group home for people with Alzheimer's.  Are you now providing elderly housing, an assisted living facility, or a residential treatment facility?  If you want to be in a neighborhood, how many people are you allowed?  If you have 8 adults, plus a live-in nurse, are you a family?  If you are a family, do you still have to meet the requirement for assisted living facility?  It would take 100 posts to explain what constitutes a family under the zoning code right now.  Foster families, women's shelters, group homes, fraternities, residential treatment facilities, etc....--each of these already has a different definition under the zoning code, and each has different requirements and restrictions.

This was a rather minor adjustment to the number of people who are allowed to be considered a family.  I don't know that it makes much difference if it is passed or not.  What bugs me though is when people subscribe ulterior motives to people putting this forward, when the real problem is simply that our zoning code is confusing.