Live blog: Ability Housing Springfield meeting

[Bill Hoff]

For those interested, here's a summary of the meeting: http://www.sparcouncil.org/community_meeting_with_ability_housing

The anonymous paper survey collected at the end of the meeting showed 113 oppose the project, while 13 are in favor.

Personally, I think the actual physical property itself would be managed fine. Ability Housing has a good track record of property renovation and management. Perhaps I could be wrong, but I don't fear the property turning into a drug market or mad house.

I and most others do, however, have a H-U-G-E problem with an organization purposely not informing or engaging a community about their planned project in that community because they suspect it may be unpopular. As Councilman Gaffney stated, they may not  have a legal obligation, but they did have a moral one. If you believe in what you're doing, don't hide it. Sell it. Get others to come on board. Work to get everyone on the same page. Instead, the project was purposely not discussed with members of the community until they had already won the grant. Not cool.

As others have stated, the right location is just as important as the right program. The Springfield historic district still has a high concentration of social service housing, which has some impact on quality-of-life. This was noted by COJ years ago, which resulted in the zoning overlay, meant to decrease the concentration of some kinds of social service housing. This new project may technically avoid those criteria, but in essence is a similar use. And while I'm not really worried about the quality of the property or property management, I would say there's a 99% chance that a program participant moved into the neighborhood from elsewhere will end up financially supporting the drug activity that is left in the neighborhood. Again, that's not cool either.

In the big picture, the positive momentum and projects going on in the community right now far, far outweigh the negative (Heck, this exact property has had multiple offers to renovate into nice apartments appealing to the working and professional class). So I don't expect a noticeable negative impact from this project, but there's more grant dollars for similar projects out there. And others will be looking for good locations to establish them in. When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?

Anyways, that's my personal perspective.

Cheers.

[sheclown]

For those interested, here's a summary of the meeting: http://www.sparcouncil.org/community_meeting_with_ability_housing

The anonymous paper survey collected at the end of the meeting showed 113 oppose the project, while 13 are in favor.

Personally, I think the actual physical property itself would be managed fine. Ability Housing has a good track record of property renovation and management. Perhaps I could be wrong, but I don't fear the property turning into a drug market or mad house.

I and most others do, however, have a H-U-G-E problem with an organization purposely not informing or engaging a community about their planned project in that community because they suspect it may be unpopular. As Councilman Gaffney stated, they may not  have a legal obligation, but they did have a moral one. If you believe in what you're doing, don't hide it. Sell it. Get others to come on board. Work to get everyone on the same page. Instead, the project was purposely not discussed with members of the community until they had already won the grant. Not cool.

As others have stated, the right location is just as important as the right program. The Springfield historic district still has a high concentration of social service housing, which has some impact quality-of-life. This was noted by COJ years ago, which resulted in the zoning overlay, meant to decrease the concentration of some kinds of social service housing. This new project may technically avoid those criteria, but in essence is a similar use. And while I'm not really worried about the quality of the property or property management, I would say there's a 99% chance that a program participant moved into the neighborhood from elsewhere will end up financially supporting the drug activity that is left in the neighborhood. Again, that's not cool either.

In the big picture, the positive momentum and projects going on in the community right now far, far outweigh the negative (Heck, this exact property has had multiple offers to renovate into nice apartments appealing to the working and professional class). So I don't expect a noticeable negative impact from this project, but there's more grant dollars for similar projects out there. And others will be looking for good locations to establish them in. When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?

Anyways, that's my personal perspective.

Cheers.

Perhaps we disagree on the "damage" that special uses have done to the neighborhood, but that is a discussion for another day.

I will say that I admire you for your honesty in this post.

Thank you for sharing.

[strider]

Yes, Bill, a good and honest post. Now go convince some of the other leaders of the community to do the same.

I will state that I fully understand why Ability Housing did not come to the community with this first.  Why should they? They were buying an apartment building, nothing more.  I do agree that position is from a legal standpoint which you recognized.  However, to be honest when trying to state that they had a moral obligation, does anyone buying any apartment building, duplex or even a single family house have any legal or moral requirement to announce what they are going to do?  Does your neighbor around the corner have to tell you that they want to buy a duplex and rent it to college kids? I don't see the difference and using that point as an argument why one should be against this comes across as an excuse not a reason.

You ask:  When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?

My answer to that is when the leadership uses facts and truth rather than misinformation and innuendo.  When the people use reason and common sense rather than stomp their feet and act like a frenzied mob.

Maybe recognizing that there are not 50 or 60 special uses, but only 12.  Maybe using the correct definition of special use would be a help as well.   Special use is a small group of business that were seen not as this horrible type of community destroying business but one that was indeed too prevalent for a healthy community.  At the time of the passage of the overlay, I believe there we indeed 40 or 50 legal special uses.  Today, the 12 left are well run and have fought and won this battle once already.  Perhaps it is best not to go back there.

The purchasing of this apartment building and the renting it to a group of individuals that happen to have ADA and Fair Housing protections is not a Special Use.  Anymore than your personal house is.

I personally do not care either way.  I do not believe this type of rental will be any worse that any other and who knows, maybe better.  But I hate seeing some of the same poor leadership decisions being made over and over again and making all of Springfield look bad.  Most residents are good and caring, some more are simply being caught up in the hype, all are getting painted in a bad light due to a few who can't seem to be honest and truthful no matter what.

[Debbie Thompson]

Maybe it's time to stop the madness and all of us stop posting while we are all still speaking to each other.

[sheclown]

Smiling here Debbie. Metrojacksonville has been so very much milder than Facebook.

[Debbie Thompson]

Time to stop posting there too. :-)

[iloveionia]

It seems like the issue stems around two things. 1. Not being notified as a community (although it really could be only have been a courtesy notice) and 2. That 12-24 people who would potentially move into the apartment building could cause great harm and/or havoc in Historic Spfld.

Given Springfield's history, and the response at the community meeting, I'm sure AH is doing a lot of "in-hindsight" thinking. That said it is a wait and see at this stage of the game. The building will be rehabbed and updated (cool) and selfishly I hope any historic interior features will be worked into the rehab.

[JaxUnicorn]

A Springfield pastor posted a comment a few days ago that compared the Springfield Community Meeting with Ability Housing to a lynching, and that sparked quite the outcry by Springfieldians.  Unfortunately some of the responses to his post echoed the way this community treated Ability Housing.  Using the term 'lynching' may have been a bit harsh as it infers killing someone, but shy of the killing part, the meeting did resemble a mob of sorts, complete with folks making speeches in what seemed to be a way to 'rally the troops', and people yelling out at the Ability Housing panel.  I realize emotions are running high and some people feel they are being dumped on in this situation.  It is OK to feel that way - feelings are neither right nor wrong and everyone is entitled to them.

That being said, I was truly shocked at the way some of my neighbors conducted themselves during the meeting and the way the Ability Housing guests were treated.  Yes, I said guests.  SPAR invited them to our neighborhood to discuss their upcoming project and instead of being open-minded and civil, many Springfield residents treated them rudely on numerous levels. Everyone deserves respect.

Even though the Moderator did a great job of setting the ground rules, throughout the meeting those rules were not honored.  Ability Housing had no requirement to come to the Community meeting, yet they agreed to answer residents' questions and explain their project.  They apologized numerous times for not communicating with the residents of Springfield even though there is no requirement for them to share their plans with us.  Put yourself in Shannon Nazworth's shoes for a moment...how would you have felt if you had people yelling at you the way folks were at the meeting.  Certainly not the way to treat anyone, not the way I expected my neighborhood to act, and definitely not the way I wish for my neighborhood (which I love) to be seen/portrayed.  After seeing this I understand a little more why our City Council has a 3 minute limitation on public comments and a rule that does not allow comments or any show of support or disdain from the audience.

Below are my thoughts on this issue:

1. The AH purchase of 139 Cottage Avenue is not a violation of the Zoning overlay. 

2. The AH use of 139 Cottage Avenue as apartments is not a violation of the Zoning overlay. 

3. Any landlord has the legal right to rent their property to whomever they wish - the community cannot dictate that.

4. AH has indicated in the case of 139 Cottage Avenue, they will be a landlord only.

5. Questions/concerns about AH's spending as it relates to this project should not be directed to AH.  If someone is concerned the costs involved with the project may appear to be inflated, he/she should direct those concerns to the grant funding entity. It is that entity's responsibility/duty to ensure the funds are spent accurately.

6. The Springfield neighbors who are upset appear to be making assumptions regarding the perceived behavior of future tenants. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to definitively predict how an individual, whether he/she is a homeless person, a homeless veteran, unemployed, alcoholic, mentally challenged, etc., will impact a neighborhood.  Have individuals such as these historically caused issues in a neighborhood?  Sometimes, yes.  The same can be said for those who are NOT homeless, NOT alcoholic, NOT unemployed or NOT mentally challenged.

7. No one can predict the future.

A link to the Ability Housing meeting recap provided by SPAR is attached to this post.  As I read thru the recap, I was a little disappoined in the spin the recap took.  Perhaps I should not have been, because I believe I know SPAR's stance on the whole issue.  However, a recap should accurately encompass the entire meeting, both for and against. 

It is certainly Mr. Meeks' right to pursue some sort of legal action to prevent AH from proceeding with their current plan should he choose to do so.  It would be my hope that it is done personally and not at SPAR's direction.  This could be a very slippery slope, and SPAR does not speak for every resident within Springfield's historic district.

[strider]

My apologizes for the very long post.  It is mostly the quoting of parts of the overlay.

There has been a lot of talk as to what the overlay says about various "special uses" and unfortunately, much of what has been said by some of the leadership over this issue is not correct.

Here's the basic introductory language from the Springfield Overlay:

Sec. 656.365. Legislative findings and intent.

The Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 91-733-570 on January 28, 1992, the City Council established the Springfield Historic District. Since that date, various studies and plans, including the Neighborhood Action Plan, Historic Springfield District, October, 1992, and the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997, as revised August, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Council Secretary and in the Planning and Development Department, have recommended the implementation of a zoning district overlay to resolve zoning-related problems in the Springfield Historic District.
(b) The Springfield Historic District consists of more than 12 City blocks, approximately one square mile in size, with 3,800 structures and a population of over 6,900. The number of historic structures totaled 1,890 (115 of which are landmark buildings) in 1991. The District is the largest historic residential district in Florida.
(c) The Springfield Historic District contains 3,800 dwelling units, 1,890 of which are historic dwelling units. Homestead properties in the area were reported at only 521 in August, 1998. Based on these numbers, only 14 percent of the District was owner occupied as of August 1998.
(d) Over a period of many years, zoning and land use changes in Springfield have served to encourage the decline of the area and not its redevelopment. The Springfield Historic District has been negatively affected by current zoning districts which do not recognize the unique character of the neighborhood. For many years prior to the establishment of the District, the City allowed intensive and intrusive uses to locate in the neighborhood and did not encourage the type of development that promotes and sustains a stable, economically viable, and primarily single-family/owner-occupied neighborhood. Standard zoning districts also do not recognize the small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique development pattern.
(e) Within the one square mile area of the Springfield Historic District, the Council finds there is a disproportionately large number of rooming houses (13), group care homes, community residential homes of seven or more residents and automotive uses (20), including automobile sales and repairs and related automotive uses.
(f) As noted in the Springfield Action Plan, the population of Springfield has been in decline during the course of the past two years. Since 1980, the population in Springfield has decreased from 8,049 persons to a 1990 Census count of 6,969 persons. This decrease is primarily attributable to a decline in household size, an increase in vacancy rate, and a decline in building permit activity. Population projections show a continued decline in population into the year 2020, unless the area becomes more attractive as a place to live and invest. In 1990, average (mean) income was only $8,860 per household (only 48 percent of the County's average). Estimates of poverty levels in 1990 affected nearly 46 percent per cent of these households. Fifty percent of the households had a median income of less than $5,710. Income characteristics as found in census data for 1990, on a Countywide basis, show average incomes have increased by more than 80 percent since 1980. However, similar gains for the Springfield neighborhood have not occurred. In 1990, 52 percent of the households had a median income of less than $10,000 and only 9.4 percent with incomes above the County average of $35,618.
(g) The Springfield Historic District is an invaluable resource to the City and its citizens and should be preserved for future generations.
(h) The property disinvestment and blight caused by incompatible zoning and other factors associated with core City decline must be reversed through a comprehensive revitalization program that will include zoning districts tailored to the neighborhood. Standards should allow appropriate and compatible development to proceed without the high costs associated with variances and administrative deviations required to deviate from current lot and use standards.
(I) The zoning districts and regulations contained in this Subpart I were developed with the participation and assistance of neighborhood residents, property owners and City staff.
(j) The Planning Commission and the Urban Affairs and Planning Committee considered these districts and regulations, held public hearings and made their recommendations to the Council.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Council hereby establishes the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations contained in this Subpart I for the purpose of encouraging residential owner-occupants, allowing for mixed uses and home businesses, discouraging over-intensive uses, and providing performance standards and special regulations for uses allowed by exception.

Take from that what you will.  I see that the city pretty much ignored the area for decades, except that in the 70's they tried to start the bulldozers at first and not stop until 20th.  That got stopped, but a battle to save the area has been waging ever since.

The overlay's original intent was to address the zoning issues like set backs and mixed use.  It did that fairly well, perhaps stopping a bit short of what will eventually be needed but it covered most of the bases.  Interpretations of that zoning and historic guidelines seems to be a bigger problem, but that is best left for another discussion.

The reason so many of the "special uses" were in Springfield was multifaceted.  To begin with, no one else wanted this area for decades.  Then there was the various services already in existence in close proximity.  The area was well serviced by public transportation.  Houses were purchased cheap and could then be rented on the cheap. The area was where JSO sort of pushed various activities, knowing they could not stop the activity, it was kept away from the "nice " folk.  (The last per JSO officers in the late 90's)

In any case, the overlay did address the issue and it has done exactly what the writers wanted, it has allowed the reduction of the special uses by attrition as things simply evolved naturally.  No legal business was forced out. Nor does it prevent the opening of new, legal businesses.  It simply restricts the types and  primarily the scale of the various less desirable (to some) businesses.

Below is the actual "performance standards" section that includes the description of what a special use is:

656.369. Springfield performance standards and development criteria.
The following permitted uses or permissible uses by exception shall meet the performance standards and criteria listed under each use. These uses are in addition to, rather than in lieu of, the supplementary regulations of Section 656.401, as applicable.

(All but Special uses deleted due to message size)

(g) Special uses. Special uses are residential/institutional uses that are no longer permitted in the districts. Such uses may continue if they comply with the standards and criteria of this subsection within one year from the effective date of this legislation. The following uses are identified as special uses: residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents. Beginning November 1, 2008 and thereafter, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
(1) Information showing or depicting the accurate square footage of the facility's livable interior space and number of habitable rooms, as it existed on December 21, 2000; and
(2) Licensure or permit information from the relevant State agency showing continuous operation of the facility from prior to December 21, 2000; and
(3) License or permit information or affidavit if such information is not available as to number of residents authorized to legally occupy the licensed or permitted facility on or before December 21, 2000; and
(4) Number of persons considered by the facility to be occupying the facility as full-time staff and/or their immediate family members.
Those special use facilities which provide the above information in a timely manner are considered legally non-conforming and shall be allowed to continue operation until such time as the legally non-conforming status ceases, as provided in this Chapter. As relating to the information submitted as required in this subsection, special use facilities shall not expand the square footage of the facility, relocate the facility or increase the number of licensed residents in the facility. Additionally, if a facility increases the number of staff, including immediate family members, the facility shall notify the Director within 90 days of such increase.
The city shall through annual inspections also ensure that such uses comply with the following standards, and if the property is not in compliance with the standards after a reasonable time allowed for correction of the violation, if the facility fails to timely submit the information required herein, or if the special use intensifies, expands, relocates or fails to report increases in staff in a timely manner, the special use shall not be allowed to continue.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning code, the occupancy of a special use facility shall not exceed any applicable occupancy limitation otherwise required by any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation.
(1) Chain link fences shall not be allowed in any yards along public streets (not including alleys), and must be located at least six feet behind the closest vertical plane of the primary structure.
(2) The use shall comply with all applicable City property maintenance and unsafe building codes.
(3) Twenty-four-hour, on-site management shall be required.
(4) New rooming houses are not permitted. Existing rooming houses shall be identified by one or more of the following existing conditions, each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption that a building is a rooming house:
(A) Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent;
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc.;
(c) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric, or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.

I believe that most will agree that the proposed used is NOT a special use by definition.  You may be interested to note that to do what some have asked for, provide special services in house, would indeed make the use an illegal special use. What Ability Housing is proposing is simply legal.  Also take note that when they talk about group care homes, they define such as 6 or fewer in a unit, meaning that 6 or fewer  unrelated adults in one apartment or house, not an apartment building with 12 apartments. For instance, the various rooming houses and halfway houses (12 total in Springfield) that are special uses have meet all the criteria and are legally allowed a higher density.

Another thing to look at is how a rooming house is defined, the last few lines in the section above.  Think about your house.  Does one or more items on the list apply to your home?  I guarantee that if it meets the standard codes, it does.  Therefore, someone could call your house in as a illegal rooming house and per the above section, you must be considered guilty until you prove your innocence.  Nice, isn't it?

I guess that is a way of saying that much of the overlay, including much of this section, simply is not enforceable. Then, when you have people like Mr Meeks and Mr Trautman trying to interpret to suit their personal agendas, you end up with a real mess.  I can also guarantee you that a lawsuit against the city or Ability Housing over the interpretation of the overlay or an attempt to toughen the overlay to rid the community of certain groups of people will end up in Federal court and end very badly for both the city and the community.

[sheclown]

Springfield neighborhood safety walk turns into protest against plans for housing for homeless

By Denise Smith Amos Sat, May 17, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

A Saturday morning walk for safety in historic Springfield became an ad hoc protest against a plan to convert a 12-unit apartment building into housing for "chronically homeless" adults, including veterans.

About 40 people, including School Board member Paula Wright and City Council member Johnny Gaffney, met at Andrew Robinson Elementary, about a block away from the planned facility, and walked the 1-square-mile neighborhood, handing out safety pamphlets, discussing a spate of thefts and planning to convince City Hall to halt the homeless project proposed by Ability Housing of Northeast Florida Inc.

The project involves converting a current apartment building of 12 studio apartments into permanent residences for people who were homeless. The project will target veterans, including some people currently living on the streets in that neighborhood, said Shannon Nazworth, executive director of Ability Housing.

She said she's hopes to work more closely with the community and help them realize they won't need to fear these new residents, who will be carefully screened by her group and Veterans Affairs officials.

"We're not going to put people in these units that we and the VA don't believe will be successful," she said.

"We're going to help the Springfield neighborhood. These are people who are already their neighbors; they just don't have a place to live."

But some neighbors say they're not yet convinced.

Crissie Cudd, who lives in Springfield, said she is against the facility based on what she has read in the project's application documents and her fears that there won't be enough on-site security and monitoring once they move in.

Cudd says she's not against helping those who are homeless. She lives next to a drug treatment and halfway house.

"They're great neighbors," she said. "They have amazing supervision and curfews."

But the veterans' apartment application, she said, doesn't mention either of those safeguards.

Gaffney said there are safety concerns with so many children living and attending school nearby. Latrese Fann, principal of Robinson Elementary, said about 200 to 300 students walk home through the neighborhood daily.

Police officers tried to assure the crowd that they will make sure sex offenders and predators will not be moving into those apartments.

Gaffney added that the project has never gone before the full City Council or even a Council committee, because the application was filed almost as if it were a regular apartment renovation. He urged the group to email fellow council members and the mayor about their concerns.

"Sometimes politicians, they try to sneak things in," Gaffney said. "If we don't protect what we have, it will go down. ... The worst thing you can do is let them off the hook. Invite the mayor out [to Springfield]. Sometimes you have to smoke people out."

Other community residents said the project violates a community "overlay" the city approved in 2000 which limited what kind of developments and "special use" projects can come into Springfield.

At the time the historic neighborhood had the highest concentration of agencies and nonprofit organizations to help struggling families, adults and children in the five-county region. The overlay was designed to lighten that congestion by prohibiting new group homes and similar agencies.

Nazworth said recently that the project does not violate the overlay.

Nazworth said it will not be a group home or treatment center, but an apartment building "comparable to ordinary apartments except that they're aimed at people who have been homeless."

Nazworth said that with 12 units, it's not cost-effective to on-site staff there 24-7, but "these will be the most visited apartments in Springield," she said because caseworkers, property managers, maintenance and Ability staff will visit weekly.

Documents Ability filed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation state that the building will house single adults and two-person adult households.

"Residents will have extensive histories of homelessness, having been homeless for more than one year or having had four separate episodes of homelessness in the past three years," a document said.

"All residents will have a disability diagnosed by a licensed professional health care provider ... most will have a primary diagnosis of mental illness and a long history of psychiatric hospitalization. Others may have chronic illness, such as COPD, HIV/AIDS, heart disease and diabetes."

Ability Housing has more than 12 years' experience managing housing for "vulnerable populations," including 255 units of affordable and supportive housing to "formerly homeless or at risk households."

At its Renaissance Village and Mayfair Village, 90 percent of residents stayed put from 2012 to '13 and their incomes rose an average 5 percent.

Several Springfield marchers said they are unsure if the project will truly target veterans and they wished the plans specified who would monitor the residents.

Nazworth said there has never been problems with the residents of the villages and their neighbors.

"We are viewing this as an educational opportunity, so they can understand you don't need to be scare of homeless people," she said.

The building's current residents will have to move, and some are unhappy about it.

Leisa Crocker said she has been told that Ability will help pay moving costs and the first month's rent elsewhere, but Crocker doesn't want to move. She planted the flowers and planters in front of her building, she says; she wants to stay in the neighborhood.

"I've been living here for five years," she said. "There's no crime. ... We got the neighborhood just like we want it. ... I don't want this place to become a homeless shelter. There's a school near. There's kids that live right here and right there," she said, pointing to nearby homes on Cottage Avenue.

Denise Amos: (904) 359-4083

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-05-17/story/springfield-neighborhood-safety-walk-turns-protest-against-plans-housing

[sheclown]

Treating homeless veterans as if they were a danger to our children....nice.

What truly would be a danger to our children --  if the soldiers would have never fought for this country in the first place.

[strider]

It is somewhat amusing to have the protesters state that part of the issue with Ability Housing is the lack of on site supervision when it would be that very on site supervision that would make this use of the apartment building a special use type business and therefore illegal.  The use as planned currently is not illegal under the overly and we know that from actually reading the overlay as well as because the city planing department has already determined it is a proper and legal use under the overlay and the paperwork filed by Mr. Meek' attorney and the fees paid is to appeal that decision. 

Why this is a bit scary is this statement:

At the time the historic neighborhood had the highest concentration of agencies and nonprofit organizations to help struggling families, adults and children in the five-county region. The overlay was designed to lighten that congestion by prohibiting new group homes and similar agencies.

While there is a bit of truth in the statement, the overlay never mentions non-profits nor anything about the agencies helping families and children being bad for the community.  While the statement implies that all group care homes were included as special uses, that is not true and low density group care homes are allowed under the overlay by right.  Other "agencies", mostly non-profits like church groups or service providers like the Bridge or Operation New Hope, were never part of the group of businesses being limited by the overlay nor ever considered "special uses".  The only list put forward by the few against Ability Housing to prove their claim that there is 50 or more "special uses" in Historic Springfield was nothing but a list of non-profit owned properties with even SPAR Council and SIAA (Woman's Club) on the list.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21248.0.html

Regardless of what some may say now about the existing special uses (there are really only 10 businesses under that classification) if the city somehow changes it's stance and now agrees with this incorrect interpretation of the overlay and says the use of Cottage by Ability Housing is illegal or this misguided group attempts to change the overly to make themselves right,  then there will be a war on all the non-profits that help people these few do not like.  And the resulting battle will not be a pretty one for all of Jacksonville.  Nor is it one they will win in Federal Court.

[Bill Hoff]

FYI, the individuals who are challenging the zoning of the proposed use at the property recieved a letter of determination by COJ today. Here it is:

http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2522

[strider]

May 29, 2014

E. Owen McCuller, Jr., Esquire
Smith Hulsey & Busey
225 Water Street, Suite 1800
Jacksonville, FL 32201

RE: Request for Written Interpretation - Ability Housing - 139 Cottage Avenue

Dear Mr. McCuller:

Pursuant to Section 656.109, Ordinance Code, the Director of the Planning and Development Department is vested with the duty and authority to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Code (Chapter 656, Ordinance Code). You have requested a Written Interpretation of the Zoning Code as it relates to the proposed use of 139 Cottage Avenue by Ability Housing of Northeast Florida, Inc.

I have reviewed the pertinent information concerning the above referenced property identified under Real Estate Number 073175-0000 and located at 139 Cottage Avenue. The property is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) functional land use category of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Further, the property is zoned Residential Medium Density-Springfield (RMD-S).

You have asked if a "homeless supportive housing" use is a permitted use under RMD-S or a prohibited special use under the Springfield Zoning Overlay. "Homeless supportive housing" is not a defined use in the Zoning Code. In an e-mail from Jenna Emmons with Ability Housing to Folks Huxford, Chief of Current Planning on April 1, 2014, it was stated that the intention is to renovate the existing 12-unit building and continue to use it as a multi-family dwelling. The e-mail goes on to state that this will not be a residential treatment facility, rooming house, emergency shelter, group care home, or community residential home. Although Ability Housing has not applied for a Certificate of Use, representations from Ability Housing to the Planning and Development Department is that the facility will be operated as a multiple-family dwelling with residents holding long term leases. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted by right in the RMD-S zoning district and under the terms of the Springfield Zoning Overlay.

However, the application for grant funding by Ability Housing to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC), specifically Application 2014-332G, indicates that the proposed use of the Cottage Avenue Apartments is to serve chronically homeless adults without children. Further, all residents will have a disability diagnosed by a licensed professional health care provider, and it is anticipated that the most residents will have a primary diagnosis of mental illness and a long history of psychiatric hospitalization. Additionally and importantly, support services will be provided by community organizations. Oversight of the support services team will be provided by the Program Director for Ability Housing.

Section 656.368(I)(d) of the Zoning Code defines Special Uses to include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of over six residents. Any such new special uses are not allowed in the RMD-S zoning district. This list is inclusive but not exhaustive. The intended plan of development as described in the FHFC application indicates that the proposed use encompasses activities beyond the customary activities associated with multiple-family dwellings. Based on the provided documentation, it is apparent that the intended use, as characterized, is akin to that of a rooming house or group care home and similar activities; activities that served as the very basis of the implementation of the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Therefore, it is my interpretation that the proposed use at 139 College Avenue should be categorized as a special use rather than a multiple-family dwelling, and as such, would be considered a new special use prohibited in the Springfield Zoning Overlay.

If you have any further questions on this or any other zoning related issue, please feel free to contact me at (904) 255-7800.

Sincerely,

Calvin L. Burney, Sr.
Director

It is amusing to ponder why Mr Burney changed his tune from the first meeting.  It is also dangerous to now interpret the term "Special Uses" in this way.  In reading this determination, I see that Mr Burney is no longer really basing his decision on the use of the property but rather the potential tenants of the property and what they may or may not need. 

[strider]

In this decision, the City is stating that the use as described by Ability Housing is perfectly legal in RMD-S zoning.  Next, the City provides the proof that what Ability Housing is saying is true, that they are not opening a Group Care Home under the current legal and accepted definition.  But then the city says that because the list of Special Uses is all inclusive, but not really thorough, in their opinion, and that this use is similar to a group care home because it will house disabled persons who need extra services, that it is indeed a special use. It is because the disabled residents  may or may not need the outside services Ability Housing is willing to help them get that makes the proposed use illegal not that it actually fits into one of the current legally accepted definitions of  a Special Use.  To make the conclusion that the Cottage Ave project is illegal, the City just redefined both Group Care Homes and Special Uses.

This decision seems to be about as discriminatory against the disabled as one can get.  This is the City telling the disabled they are not welcome in Historic Springfield if not all of Jacksonville.