HomeMy WebLinkAboutAO-85-0000 - Decision - 1925 Dorset StreetI te- Coe,
r
In re: Appeal of Ramsey, et al A O _ Fs--60' 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
and
NOTICE OF DECISION
This is an appeal from the decision of the Acting Zoning Administrative
Officer, Jane Bechtel, wherein she ruled that the Northeastern Family
Institute's proposal for use of land and premises at 1925 Dorset Street
would constitute a single family residence. Miss Bechtel's decision was
based upon the standards set forth in 24 V.S.A. §4409(d). Our Findings
of Fact and the resulting decision are based upon the testimony of witnesses
and various documentary exhibits offered at the hearing conducted on February 11,
February 25, and March 4, 1985. We find the following:
1. The subject property on Dorset Street in South Burlington is
located in the Agricultural and Rural Residential Zoning District.
2. Single family residences are a permitted use in the AGR District.
3. The applicant's project is licensed by the State of Vermont
as a Therapeutic Community Residence.
4. There were only two issues addressed during the hearing:
a. Whether the Northeastern Family Institute's (NFI) proposed
use would constitute a "group home" for purposes of 24
V.S.A. §4409(d); and
b. Whether the clients to be served at the facility are "develop-
mentally disabled" as required by the statute.
5. Subsection (d) of 24 V.S.A. §4409 was added to the statute in
the 1977 Adjourned Session, and the legislative enactment is
prefaced by the following declaration of policy:
It is the policy of the state of Vermont
that developmentally disabled and physically
handicapped persons shall not be excluded
by municipal zoning ordinances from the
benefits of normal residential surroundings.
It is also state policy to avoid excessive
concentration of group residences for develop-
mentally disabled or physically handicapped
persons within any municipality or a part
of any municipality. Act No. 140 (Adj.Sess.
1977).
6. Both the appellants and the applicant agree that the term "group
home" is not defined in our state statutes.
7. Fifteen to twenty-five percent of the clientele occupying the
subject premises will stay one to three months, and approximately
eighty percent will stay one to seven days.
8. The applicant estimates one hundred people will be served during
the course of a year, and that eighty of these persons will
be there less than a week.
9. The applicant has contemplated the elimination of a proposed
emergency bed, but did not suggest how that bed would otherwise
be used.
10. We find that a significant percentage of those to be housed
at the NFI facility will be in a crisis situation, and the stay
of most will be of very limited duration.
11. We further find that the shortterm stay and high turnover of
clients is not characteristic of a residential setting.
12. The target clientele for NFI's facility is severally emotionally
disturbed youngsters.
13. We find that the program emphasis for the clients can be charac-
terized as evaluative and diagnostic.
14. The occupants of the proposed facility will not attend the South
Burlington school system, and there was no evidence that they
will intermingle in the community and take advantage of city
programs and services.
15. We find the lack of community ties conflicts with the typical
home environment.
16. We further find that the applicant's program is not designed
to offer a homelike environment to its clients so that they
may function in the community with the assistance of a support
system.
17. The applicant's planned facility will provide staff coverage
twenty-four hours per day in three eight hour shifts.
18. Each shift will have at least two counselors, and the staff
positions include a program director, clinical director, residential
house manager, special education coordinator and a secretary.
19. We find the ratio of staff to clients to be very high, and the
absence of "house parents' to be uncharacteristic of a home-
like atmosphere.
20. The lack of a home environment is further enforced by the necessity
of high skilled professionals to supervise the occupants.
21. Little personal freedom can or will be offered to the occupants,
and they will not be allowed outside the facility without close
supervision.
22. All of the above findings lead us to conclude that the facility
will not offer the clients "the benefits of normal residential
surroundings" as the legislature envisioned for "group homes"
receiving the zoning immunity of 24 V.S.A. §4409(d).
23. We conclude that NFI's proposed facility is neither a residence
nor home as the legislature intended, but is better characterized
as an acute clinical treatment facility for a transient population.
24. In reaching our conclusion we are pursuaded by the fact that
the occupants would not view the facility as their place of
residence nor as their domicile, and we believe this to be a
necessary ingredient of a "group home" for purposes of the statute.
Because we have concluded that the applicant's intentions do not
qualify as a "group home" deserving of the statutory zoning immunity,
we will not make a determination of whether the clientele to be served
are "developmentally disabled".
NOTICE OF DECISION
The January 16, 1985 decision of the City of South Burlington Acting
Zoning Administrator Officer is reversed.
10
Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this % day of April, 1985.
Zoning Board of Adjustment -South
Burlington