Live blog: Ability Housing Springfield meeting

[strider]

One of the interesting things about this letter is to recognize what it really is.  An opinion letter from the head of planning to a lawyer working on the behalf of Mr Jack Meeks, nothing more.  Until Ability Housing actually applies for a Certificate of Use, it doesn't mean all that much.  I guess it could scare off Ability Housing from Springfield, but I somehow doubt that.  The real fight about Cottage Ave will happen down the road, not today.  What the opinion letter is more likely to do is to enable Mr Meeks to come after several other non-profits he does not like and attempt to shut them down based on the concept that you are an illegal Special Use if you happen to help disabled persons in any way. I don't see how they can make any of that stick unless they make an attempt at changing the overlay to reflect Mr Burney's opinion as it is indeed changing definitions which I thought took a ordinance change.

[GatorNation]

If this is just an opinion letter from Calvin to Meeks' attorney, writing about the specialized circumstances described by Meeks reflecting Meeks characterization of the situation, why are these people disseminating it as the final word?

This sounds exactly like the ploy of pretending that 'attorneys have instructed' Realtors to red tag their own listings in springfield in order to bully through a ruling.  It claims legal authority through the concept of 'truthiness'.

Calvin could write a similar letter expressing his opinion about one of the churches in Springfield if the questioner worded it a specific way.

It's not just an "opinion letter."  It's a formal legal interpretation of the Zoning Code, and it has real legal consequences. Unless and until an "adversely affected" person appeals it within 14 days, this interpretation will effectively be the law (and it won't be subject to challenge later).

[GatorNation]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.

The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.

Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.

Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.

I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.

[GatorNation]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.

The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.

Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.

Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.

I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.

this literally has nothing to do with my response.  You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.

Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.

Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works.  I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax).  I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.

The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation.  Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.

[strider]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.

The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.

Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.

Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.

I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.

this literally has nothing to do with my response.  You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.

Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.

Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works.  I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax).  I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.

The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation.  Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.

While I do not doubt you on the 14 day appeal issue, it seems to only apply to this particular opinion for this particular client. Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one. For this to be binding on everyone and without future appeal rights, it would have to be made part of the ordinance and the public noticed about the coming decisions.  This is still, whether legally binding on anyone or not, nothing but an opinion by a manager serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, it is not an ordinance and so can be changed on a whim by someone else in the future. Just like Mr Burney just up and decided to change the current interpretation of the ordinances involving Special Uses and Group Care Homes. And I personally question if he has not gone too far and over stepped his bounds.

[GatorNation]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.

The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.

Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.

Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.

I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.

this literally has nothing to do with my response.  You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.

Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.

Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works.  I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax).  I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.

The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation.  Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.

Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one.

Application for what?  Doesn't the letter state that the use is not allowed at all in Springfield? Again, I'm not familiar with the underlying facts here, so I very well may be missing something.

[Debbie Thompson]

GatorNation, I wouldn't depend only upon what you read here for interpretation.  There are a lot of differing opinions on this and every other topic, and of course, we all post what we believe to be true.  Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we have some real pot-stirrers on MJ.  It's an opinion blog.  Take everything we say with a grain of salt.  Perhaps even more than a grain.   :-)

[strider]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.

The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.

Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.

Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.

I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.

this literally has nothing to do with my response.  You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.

Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.

Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works.  I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax).  I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.

The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation.  Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.

Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one.

Application for what?  Doesn't the letter state that the use is not allowed at all in Springfield? Again, I'm not familiar with the underlying facts here, so I very well may be missing something.

The use described by Mr Burney is based on an e-mail from Ability Housing, which Mr Burney admits describes a legal use, and then his speculation based on information taken from a financial grant leading him to feel that the possible use by Ability Housing is one similar(akin) to an illegal use and he feels that is enough to call it an illegal use.  Until the actual user of the building makes that application for the COU (Certificate of use as required by the City), how does Mr Burney have the needed real information to make that judgement for the actual owner and the actual use as presented by that owner?   The use described by Mr Burney and an unrelated (to the owner and user) lawyer is not necessarily what Ability Housing is truly going to do as it is based on speculation at this point, not an actual legal application by the owner who would be effected by this opinion. If Ability Housing comes back with an application that says this is a rental, each unit is separate and shall have it's own annual lease, does not the city have to give them the Certificate of Use based on the fact that an apartment building used as such is a legal use by right?  Then it would seem that it would be up to the City to prove it is being used as some "Special Use" and therefore illegal.  Even if Mr Burney can and does use his knowledge of this opinion as requested by Mr Meeks as a basis to deny Ability Housing a COU, it will still be a new decision and one that carries with it the 14 day appeal rights.

FYI, Mr Burney is attempting to create a new Special Use with his opinion letter and that is an issue.  The use as Mr Burney describes it does not meet the criteria for Special Uses as it is defined in the codes as they stand now.  The danger here is if Mr Burney is and can just up and somehow redefine Group Care Homes as then it affects all of Jacksonville not just Springfield.

This is just bad governing again and frankly, the city should know better than try to take away the rights of the disabled to live in an area just because someone else doesn't like them in their community.  That is why ADA and Fair Housing laws exist.

[sheclown]

Ability Housing to file appeal over homeless veterans housing denial in Springfield
Wednesday, June 11, 6:07 PM EDT

From Staff
Last month, the city's planning director determined that a Springfield property could not be used for homeless veteran housing because the area's zoning rules wouldn't allow it.

Ability Housing will appeal Calvin Burney's interpretation that its goal for the 139 Cottage Ave. Apartments doesn't violate Springfield's zoning code.

The nonprofit wants to purchase the 12-unit complex and rehabilitate it for housing homeless veterans. Ability Housing was notified in mid-March it would receive $7.3 million for that project and one other.

Springfield residents voiced concerns at an April 3 forum about having the project in their neighborhood. Many said there already were too many drug and mental health facilities in the area — the reason a zoning overlay was adopted more than a decade ago to prohibit more.

Jack Meeks, a resident and member of the Downtown Investment Authority, and his wife, JoAnn Tredennick, said they would legally pursue the issue. Burney's March 29 letter is in response for a written interpretation from their attorney.

It's that interpretation Ability Housing will appeal to the city's Planning Department.

"We believe the interpretation of the use of 139 Cottage Ave. Apartments is incorrect," said Shannon Nazworth, Ability Housing executive director, in a news release. "Cottage Avenue is currently a 12-unit apartment building and after our purchase will remain a 12-unit apartment building."

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543168

[strider]

An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all.  The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself,  was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting.  And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal.  And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.

Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.

[Bill Hoff]

An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all.  The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself,  was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting.  And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal.  And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.

Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.

The Planning Dept had not yet read the grant at the time of the first community meeting.

[strider]

An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all.  The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself,  was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting.  And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal.  And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.

Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.

The Planning Dept had not yet read the grant at the time of the first community meeting.

I find that hard to believe as the grant was the entire reason some knew about the Ability Housing project and why the meeting was called. In addition, like I mentioned, the reasons for the grant, the wording of the grant and the exact use as described in the grant were talked about by both the community representatives and Ability Housing at that first meeting.  Where in spite of the information being presented, Mr. Burney still stated for the public record that the use by Ability Housing was indeed legal.  In front of a foot stomping angry mob. One would think that at the very least Mr. Burney and Mr. Huxford would have questioned the use at that point.  Instead, it took a paid for by Mr. Meeks request for a written interpretation for Mr. Burney to decide that Ability Housing's use of the apartment building, though as they stated officially, was legal, but based on information taken from the grant it was similar to a special use and therefore illegal in his opinion.  Frankly, it strikes me as odd.  Still would like to know who or what changed his mind.

[Bill Hoff]

The Director stated at the first community meeting that he had not yet seen the grant, and was going on the information that he had at the time.

The content of the grant speaks for itself as to what the building would be used for, and thus it's appropriate zoning.

[strider]

The Director stated at the first community meeting that he had not yet seen the grant, and was going on the information that he had at the time.

The content of the grant speaks for itself as to what the building would be used for, and thus it's appropriate zoning.

Hmmm, it seems to me that Mr Burney had that info long before he left that meeting.

Yes, it does have it's appropriate zoning.  It is zoned RMD-S with is exactly what it needs to be for a 12 unit apartment building. 

Again, what Mr Burney is doing is calling it a similar use.  Not a special use as currently defined, but a similar use because they house disabled persons with 12 month leases, they will help their tenants get the outside services, you know, like meals on wheels, in-house nurse care, job training and of course will actually check on their tenants every once in a while.  So per Mr Burney, that makes it similar to a ACLF and so makes it illegal as a "special Use".  Before this written interpretation, you had to actually be a special use to be not allowed, now all you have to do is be similar and have the right people not want you there.  Bad governing anyway you look at it.

[Debbie Thompson]

Maybe instead of stirring the pot, we could realize Strider, Stephen and Bill will never change each other's opinion and let it rest until the appeal.