I guess I'm a little confused. It's a state law that says two assisted living homes may not be closer than 1000 ft but federal law says who cares what the state says this is discrimination. Government at it's best.

Ha! Well put Heidi!

Why would 4 acres of land be needed for these adults? Wonder what is being implied by that statement. I have worked with both students and adults with special needs for over 13 years. They have the same rights as you and me. I guess ignorance is bliss.

I'm afraid that Ms. Petitt and Mr. Rosenfield do not remember their basic high school civics. There is a fundamental hierarchy of law in the United States. At the pinnacle is the U.S. Constitution and then federal law. Both trump state constitutions and state laws. That said, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 does not necessarily invalidate a state or city's spacing distance between group homes. The analysis is very case specific and the interplay of federal, state, and local law can get a bit complicated, but spacing distances tend to be found illegal if the jurisdiction has not conducted a proper study that provides a justification for the spacing distance or the proposed group home complies with the jurisdiction's zoning definition of "family" or "household." I don't know what Safety Harbor's zoning code provisions are, but here's the proper legal analysis. A spacing distance cannot be applied. If the definition allows any number of people to live together, then no restrictions can be placed on group homes for people with disabilities that are not applied to all families. If the definition sets a limit on the number of unrelated people who can live together -- for example, five -- then a group home that houses no more than five people with disabilities must be treated the same as any other family.

Dan, thank you very much for the information. I figured there was a precedent for the decision, and I'm not disagreeing with it. I was just saying that laws can be confusing at times, especially to average citizens such as myself! Thanks again for the comment and the insight.

That is all good and well Dan, however Agency for Persons with Disabilities which is the lead oversight agency on this type of group home requires information regarding the 1000ft rule on their application for licensure. The State Statute 419.001 states in part that, "homes of six or fewer residents which otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home shall be allowed in single-family or multifamily zoning without approval by the local government , provided that such home shall not be located wirhin a radius of 1000ft of another existing such home with six or fewer residents." According to city staff, this home was purchased and renovation began before the application was provided by operator to the city and the section questioning whether home was within 1000ft of another such home was left blank. City staff did not do their due diligence at the time on the application and it was approved until the fire inspector in the course of their duties informed the operator and the city that home was 230ft from the other facility. The city then denied the application and the operator requested a conditional use variance which led to a somewhat continuous public meeting lasting until 2:00am in the morning where the city commission, stating state law, denied the request on a 6-0 vote. The operator than filed a discrimination complaint with HUD under the Fair Housing Act which led to the city's insurance company attorney settling for $400.000 and the variance being given.

I just want to reiterate a couple of points that have been brought to my attention: 1. The city is not paying the $400,000, the city's company is. 2. State law states that no home shall be within 1,000 feet unless approved by the local government. Not that it may not operate within a 1,000 feet of each other. 3. The home is not in violation of state law, if it was we could not have taken the action we did last night. The reason we took the action we did is because the federal government believes we were in violation of federal laws for not approving the home in the first place.
Thanks to City Manager Matt Spoor for these clarifications.

In addition, studies have shown that clustering of these types of homes in a residential area can have an adverse affect on property values.This is one of the reasons there is a State Statute implementing the 1000ft rule.Another reason is that basically the whole purpose of placing disabled persons in residential areas is to help integrate the them equally into the community. A clustering of these types of homes defeats this purpose though because by bunching the homes all together you're creating a community within a community. Therefore, the federal government, in all it's infinite wisdom, by intervening and pursuing reasonable accomodation for the client's of this group home have not only, caused monetary damages to the residents of our neighborhood, but also have impaired the ability to integrate these persons of disability equally into our community. We'll never know if city staff had practiced competency, done their due diligence and denied this application initially if we would still have the same outcome today. We do know this though, the city by not fighting this and granting a 78% variance ensures that any ALF, Adult Care Home or Group Home can now locate in any residential area right next door to each other causing a clustering effect in your neighborhood too. Mayor Steingold, at the end of the initial public hearing advised this, "the commission will not acquiesce to threats of a lawsuit." I wonder how those words tasted as they slid down his throat last night?

To address City of Safety Harbor City Manager Matt Spoor's last clarification, according to the minutes of city commission meeting April 19, 2011, Mayor Andy Steingold "The issue comes down to 7 review criteria. It comes down to weighing the applicant's mission against the neighboring property owners' rights. There is a clustering effect and the statute requires a 1,000 feet separation so there is no clustering effect and no institutional effect. Mayor Steingold said that based on the testimony he believed the Conditional Use would adversely effect property values and he was oppossed." I'm unclear here Matt, either the city attorney was right in his counsel to the mayor(who himself is an attorney) and city commissioners prompting the mayor to cite the state statute in voting to deny the conditional use or they were all wrong then and are right now that it did not violate state law or is it as the city attorney stated in this article "This type of home ... has protections ... under federal statutes," Zimmet explained. "A city like Safety Harbor is not allowed to deny them a group home because it's too close to another group home. That's federal law." Ok, that clears it up it's that pesky federal law that supercedes state law thing. No, wait wait don't tell me -- now I'm even more confused! Matt could you clarify that for me again or would you rather leave, take those classes first and then get back to all of us confused citizens to find out what really happened here.

I would like to clarify an item from a previous missive, at the April 19, 2011 meeting the vote was 5-0 against granting the conditional use based on state statute that prohibits such homes from operating in a 1000ft radius of each other. Sorry! My bad.

Please review the statute. The state does not prohibit a group home from being placed within 1000 feet. It actually says the county can't prohibit if they are 1000 feet. The last subsection in 419.001 says it all. Counties can be as liberal as they choose.

It's all about proper context, Jazzy, "homes of six or fewer residents which otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home shall be allowed in single-family or multifamily zoning without approval by the local government, provided that such home shall not be located wirhin a radius of 1000ft of another existing such home with six or fewer residents." And to add contest to the last subsection you mentioned, "State law on community residential homes controls over local ordinances, but nothing in this section prohibits government from adopting more liberal standards for siting such homes." Or was your last comment a poor attempt to use the word "liberal" as a derogatory pejorative?

The requirement for 1,000 ft separation could easily have been met. Ms. Hill and her henchmen simply did not exercise due diligence. She bought a house and renovated it for a group home before she had a permit. I can only hope that she uses her ill-gotten gains to buy a house for a group home next door to one of the commissioners.

Someone commented that the city's insurance carrier paid the entire settlement. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to pay settlements. So the city's insurance premium is fixed for this year. Who wants to bet that the insurance premium will be same or less for the next year?