Homeless Shelter Qualified as "Government Use" Under Zoning Code
Recently, a court considered
a challenge to a change-in-use permit issued to a county housing authority and
homeless shelter, finding that the shelter qualified as a "government use" under the zoning regulations and did not require a conditional use permit to operate. The Housing Authority of the County of Lake v. The Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals, et al.
A housing authority took over ownership of property that had previously been used as a private assisted living
facility. The authority stopped
operating the assisted-living facility, and the property stood vacant for
several years. After submitting a
request for proposals for ways to use the vacant property, the housing
authority entered into negotiations to lease the property to a not-for-profit
organization called PADS. PADS sought to use the property as a transitional
homeless shelter for chronically homeless adults.
The housing authority and PADS
approached the county to determine what zoning approvals would be necessary for
the operation of a homeless support program on the property. If the county
classified PADS’ use as “assisted-living,” a conditional use permit was required. However, if PADS’ use was
classified as “government use,” no conditional use permit was necessary. PADS submitted a change-in-use application to
the county to change the use of the property from “vacant government” to “government
use-no assembly space,” which would not require a conditional use permit.
Shortly after the county planning director granted the change-in-use request, several residents
appealed the director’s decision to the county’s zoning board of appeals
(ZBA). The county ZBA reversed the
director’s decision, finding that the use of the property by PADS was not a
“government use,” despite the fact that the housing authority owned the
property.
The court analyzed the
county’s unified development ordinance, which classified “government use” as a
“building or structure owned or leased by a unit of government and used by the
unit of government in exercising its statutory authority.” The residents argued that, since it was PADS
that was using the property, and not the housing authority, the “government use”
definition did not apply.
The court disagreed with the residents' argument, citing the fact that the housing
authority still owned the property. The court also noted that the housing authority was authorized by
state statute to contract with private entities to further its statutory goals
of providing safe and sanitary housing for the disadvantaged. The court found
that PADS’ use of the property to provide housing for homeless adults fit
squarely within the housing authority’s statutory goals.
Based on all of these findings, the court
found that the “government use” classification was proper because the property
was (1) owned by the housing authority, a unit of government; and (2) used by
the housing authority in exercising its statutory authority to contract with
private entities, like PADS, in order to further its statutory goals. As a result, no conditional use permit was required.
Post Authored by Kurt Asprooth, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment