Okay, welcome to the City of Tempe Board of Adjustment Meeting for November 19th, 2025.

The time is now six PM.

The City of Tempe Board of Adjustment is authorized by the Arizona Revised Statutes and the City of Tempe Zoning Ordinance.

Its function is to grant relief where a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinance and to hear appeals from any person or city official aggrieved by the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.

The board has the City of Tempe Community Development Staff Summary Reports on the item being considered at this meeting, and we'll use this report in our deliberations.

Staff introductions, we have the director of community development, Jeff Tamulovich.

Then step to the microphone, state your name, City of Residence.

Members of the public, not the applicant, members of the public are given three minutes to speak, and staff will monitor time.

Did I say January?

I said January.

I meant October twenty-ninth, twenty twenty-five.

I wasn't there.

I I I was out of the country.

Any comments on the minutes.

Okay, hearing none.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to accept.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, I'm abstaining.

And so the motion carries five to zero.

With one abstention.

We have no variance requests or abatement appeals, but we do have an administrative decision of pe appeal.

It's a request for an appeal of the denial of a reasonable accommodation waiver to exceed the maximum number of residents, no more than five, excluding staff.

For the Umavera Living LLC located at 1354 East Bentrip Drive.

I I was just told what order to do him in.

Hello, thank you.

And so um I do have my transcriber that's on um if you can speak clearly into the microphone.

There's a couple of times that she's not able to catch it.

Um to go for the slides.

All right.

Thank you so much for allowing me to be able to present today.

My name is Kimberly Rodriguez.

Um, a little bit information about myself.

Um, I'm gonna be the representative for Mr.

Bayless.

Um, a little bit about myself.

Um I was born and raised in assistant limit.

Um I am a national certified regulatory professional through the Board of NARA.

Um I also have a number of um expertise and sort of certificates uh issued by the Board of General Edology.

Okay.

So Mr.

Bayless's story in terms of um why we want to increase from five to ten.

This is more so focused on a personal mission.

And so um he's from Arizona, and so this is his home, this is his mother's home, and just like any of us, if we keep living, we're gonna continue to age, and as we age, we decline.

So we all want best for our parents, we all want best for us as we age.

And this is something personal in terms of um finding a suitable uh accommodation or a suitable community that can be able to not just provide um housing and supervision, but to be able to provide a thriving environment.

And that is going to be the difference of why we need five and ten.

It is going to be based on thriving, not just a place of supervision, but how can we thrive?

Um, like countless numbers, uh families that are here in Temp.

Um, we definitely we want to just focus on what's best and ensuring that we provide the most loving, comfortable, uh, intimate setting.

And the best way that we can actually establish that and ensure that we have the best care for our loved one, um, is going to be by opening our own community.

Why 10 residents matter?

Um, I'm just elaborating on information that was already provided in um the response on August 6th.

Uh, we have um one of the nurses who gave a response as well.

And so for a therapeutic peer interaction, um clinical research, it shows social engagement slows cognitive decline.

10 residents provide the critical mass needs for meaningful peer connections and dynamic group activities.

Um mass for social interaction, a home of 10 residents, it's going to create sufficient diversity and functioning levels.

This is the key.

The diversity and functioning levels.

Interest, personalities.

When you are have five people to a home, this is significantly reduced in terms of functioning abilities.

Um it's going to reduce isolation.

So cognitive functions, such as music therapy, such as reminiscence therapy, um, and many activities, we need a minimum group size that's compatible and functioning and abilities.

Residents tend to isolate when they don't have those who have the same functioning capabilities.

Um supported by nurses and medical professionals that increasing the functioning abilities and being able to communicate and having different individuals that can function on that same level, it stabilizes your behaviors.

Uh it improves emotional well-being, um, which is going to be significantly reduced by five.

Linda Nina Torres, um, that information was provided in the initial application.

Um, I do have here additional Nexus letters um of recommendation that is here if you if you would like for me to provide it.

But they are here.

I do have them here if you'd like for me to provide it.

I'm not sure.

Okay.

Um so in terms of the letters of recommendation that I do have.

Um, we have a registered nurse that is in the community as well that confirms the about the minimum therapeutic peer group needed.

We have another registered nurse that confirms essential peer support structured social environments and needs and states that five residents was gonna limit the uh does limit and does not meet the clinical need.

Um we have a pharmacist that confirms therapeutic benefits through larger peer groups, support while addressing housing shortages, um, as well as one of the care managers uh that has a daily testimony of therapeutic benefits.

So, why do 10 residents matter?

There's a couple of different um examples and scenarios that I believe that can help to have an understanding of how and why 10 matters as opposed to having five because we're focusing on thriving.

So in terms of giving examples, Mr.

Bayless's mom, right?

And so, in terms of she's the educated individual who has contributed to community.

She uh has been a teacher for years.

Um, and then when you when you are placing an individual that is aging, just like Mr.

Bayless's mother.

When you're placing her in the individual um housing unit that has five, we want to ensure that she's able to connect and continue to grow and thrive.

And so, based on I have provided 10 resident assessments, they have various different functioning abilities.

So when we come to group activities and reminiscing the various different group activities, can I sit down and actually be on the same functioning level with my peer?

And so that is why we want to increase to 10 and not be limited to five.

Um I tend matters based on the assessments.

Um, I do have the assessments here, and I have redacted them as well, and I can provide that um because it does show various different functioning capabilities, uh, various different diagnosis, and we want to ensure that we have a larger group to be able to select from in order to be able to connect and thrive.

Why tend matters?

I do give an example, a personal testament example in terms of the time that I've been training and doing vocational rehabilitation.

So in terms of because I'm legally deaf, and a lot of times people will say, Well, you don't look deaf, right?

But what does disability look like?

What does a disabled person look like?

You know, I have more service animal.

However, when I bring my service animal, people don't know.

I mean, one, she's a labradoodle, right?

And people have no clue because I don't have to put a harness on her.

So, what does disability look like?

So, in terms of while when I was doing vocational rehabilitation, as I lost my hearing over the years, I lost my hearing um due to spinal meningitis when I contracted at birth.

So, as I aged, I lost my hearing over time.

When I was removed from a normal in a larger group setting, put into a smaller setting, my verbal and cognitive skills began to diminish.

And the reason why was because those who were in the group around me, I came from a program that had almost 50 participants and pulled out to a program for those that only for learning sound language and and braille and placed in one with just 10.

However, those individuals did not have clear speech.

They did not have clear speech.

I was not able to communicate, and within less than two years, my speech and my cognitive abilities diminished to almost to the point where it was unrecognizable because we pick up what we hear, right?

We pick up what we hear in the terms of the little pieces as it's aging and as you're losing your hearing, so as you're declining.

So in terms of YIN Matters, after we realized two years that I was not benefiting, that I was declining drastically, then we were I was removed and um placed into a larger setting.

Um and I'm thankful, I'm thankful that I had someone that could advocate for me in terms of ensuring that I was able to actually thrive in the community and be able to stand here in front of you and show that yes, it does matter.

So one um additional things I do want to clarify, and just in terms of this is just adding on to the information that's already been provided within the application.

Um yes, they they comply.

Um they have already installed, they have all of the fire systems that are actually already in place.

Um, I do have all of the documentation that is here.

They do have three appropriate um street parking that is outside of the 20-foot right there uh in the driveway.

Um they're in full compliance and they continue um to be in compliance and and are ensuring that we are consistently consistently um going to comply specifically, and we're hoping that we are able to be able to move forward with 10.

So in terms of compliance, the regulatory pieces of ensuring the fire systems in place, the fire alarms are in place, emergency lighting, grass signers is appropriate and in place.

All life safety measures to comply with life safety is in place.

We do comply in terms of the codes for the parking.

We have three all street, off street, um, as well as the in the driveway.

We have three in the driveway as well as in the garage.

We have two in the garage, three in the actual driveway, as well as the off-street parking.

Um and also just to address for parking our residents that we have, we do have physician orders, they do not drive.

And so residents, well, that we would have, they do not drive, and that's something that's also that provided in these assessments that have been redacted.

Um exterior signage.

Um, I mean, it's a residential home, residential assisted living.

It's going to be in a neighborhood.

We want to ensure that it's not felt institutional.

So it remains in a residential housing setting.

So in terms of we do um in terms of comparisons to other cases in terms of when you look at what's been provided through FOIA, and and in terms of what Mr.

Bayless has provided.

Um those that have been approved, it does appear that, and I believe that we have that, you know, he's provided the um sufficient information that's needed to ensure that he can actually increase the capacity and be approved, basically, in comparison to those who have been approved.

Request for release relief.

We respectfully request um reverse the zoning administrator's denial, approve a reasonable accommodation waiver for 10 residents at um 1354 East Brinthrop Drive, impose same conditions as recent approvals.

Um we've confer we've complied with the R4 change of occupancy, fire life safety upgrades are already in place, and we comply with the parking.

Improving this waiver will provide equal housing opportunity for those who are disabled.

Um it's gonna allow thriving residents like Benjamin, thriving residents uh like myself who do need supervision to be able to live in a setting that's in the community um close to home.

Address the critical shortage of home like assisted living options, um apply the city standards consistently with recent approvals.

We um prevent harmful displacement of vulnerable seniors with cognitive impairments and served families throughout 10 searching for compassionate care that keeps loved ones close to home.

I'll take the first question.

You guys can think of so um the property the house currently is it being used as an assisted living home or has it been used as an assisted living home previously?

The house is not currently being used as an assisted living um, nor has it previously been used as assisted living.

We're requesting um to use it now as such.

Okay.

Yes.

Were you given a specific reason as to why yours was denied uh and it seems that the other ones are very similar to yours were not denied, they were approved.

Um based on the information that uh have the the seems to be the first round that was denied.

The first round was denied, was based on not um it says no valid, no valid justification.

Um then in terms of um nexus between disability and reasonable accommodation.

Um, and then there is uh second letter um that adds after we provided that information.

There's another letter that says um it's the uh okay show the nexus between disability, which the nexus was provided.

The nexus was provided as well as the actual confirmation for the parking was provided.

And then that final letter comes back and it says that burdens show nexus between the disability and the reasonable accommodation.

And such changes require three parking.

Thank you.

Any other questions.

All right.

We're going to hear from city staff, and then we'll invite you up again afterwards for any rebuttal.

And we may have more questions then.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll hear from the city.

Chair, members of the board, my name is Robert Mansolillo.

I'm a senior planner in the community development and planning division.

And this is for some context here.

Uh on the maps.

This is the site is north of Elliott Road and west of South McClintock.

It is in the R17 zoning district.

And on the right, you can see an aerial image of the house itself with the surrounding neighborhood.

Here are some recent images from a real estate listing.

See the house is currently four bedrooms and two bathrooms and just over 2,000 square feet.

And some background on the reasonable accommodation waiver itself.

It was adopted by ordinance in June of 2021, and it limited occupancy from 10 to no more than five, excluding staff.

So before this, 10 were allowed.

So now a group home with six to ten residents requires an occupancy change and additional life safety measures such as fire sprinklers and this reasonable accommodation waiver to be approved.

The review of these waivers is done on a case-by-case basis, and the results are determined by the individual assessments of these cases.

And the request was for 10, also not including staff.

The facility will serve elderly individuals with disabilities that who require assistance with activities of daily living, including mobility support, bathing, meal preparation, and medication supervision.

Some of the justifications that were in the letter are in white, and staff's responses are in green.

Access to residential care would be unreasonably restricted by local occupancy limits.

Any house can be used for a group home of up to five residents.

Um either operating or pending, pending approval.

So that is out of character for the neighborhood.

Here is the proposed floor plan.

You can see the garage.

On July 17th, the TEPU zoning administrator issued comments stating that the application did not provide valid justification for granting the reasonable accommodation waiver.

And there were there was more information that was requested.

The applicant needed to provide the necessary nexus showing that the link between the disability and a requested regulate regulation waiver in order to increase to the 10 occupancy.

And restricting the number of residents does not deprive the group home of a use since the existing four-bedroom home could function as a group home with up to five residents.

And some additional comments if the waiver was granted to 10 residents, significant changes would have to be made to convert the four-bedroom house to an eight-bedroom.

And there are active building permits for an interior remodel.

The review of those are on hold pending the outcome of this appeal.

And based on the intensification of the bedrooms added to the home, the parking would have to be increased to three required spaces, and that third space would have to be outside of the 20-foot front yard setback.

If it fell within the 20-foot front yard setback, a use permit would be needed to grant that third parking space.

The applicant submitted a revised application on August 20th.

And included in the application were some justifications for the inability to operate effectively with just five residents.

Some of those included staffing requirements, licensing standards, and best practices necessitate 24-hour supervision, and a five-resident model cannot support that.

Again, we we cannot control and don't have control over the inputs of the operating costs, and therefore we cannot use that justification to increase to 10 residents.

Pair interaction, therapeutic engagement between residents, improves emotional well-being, and limiting the census shrinks the essential benefits.

We believe that this interaction and the therapeutic engagement can also happen with five residents in the group home.

And here was the floor plan in the revised application packet.

Again, eight bedrooms, bedroom number eight will be designated for rotating staff.

There will not be a live-in caregiver.

And four bedrooms, including the staff bedroom, will be double occupancy.

And you can see in the bottom left-hand corner, the rooms, the occupancy and the square footage.

And then here is an image that was provided by the applicant, the middle image showing the parking spaces.

And the image to the right is one that I grabbed from the Maricopa County Assessor's Office.

I didn't go out to the site to measure that driveway.

But you can see from the property line, which is in from the sidewalk a little bit, a couple feet, to the it looks like the garage door is approximately 20 feet.

So any parking within that driveway would require the use permit.

And on September 18th, the zoning administrator denied the request for the reasonable accommodation waiver, stating that the application did not provide valid justification to the approval criteria in section 3-409D.

The applicant needs to provide the necessary nexus showing the link between the disability and the requested regulation waiver.

And under both federal law and the city's ordinance, it's the applicant's burden to show that nexus to be granted the reasonable accommodation request.

And again, the parking, if that third required parking space falls within the 20-foot front yard setback, the use permit is required.

And that comes from the requirements that we have for parking, up to a five-bedroom home, two parking spaces are required.

Six and beyond three parking spaces are required.

And again, here's that image with the parking spaces and the county assessor's image to the right.

And so here are the approval criteria that we base these um decisions on.

So all of these have to be the zoning administrator have to find in the affirmative for all of these approval criteria.

So the requesting party or future occupants of the house for which the reasonable accommodation has been made are protected under the Fair Housing Act and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Yes, that is being met.

Number two, the request is reasonable and necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

We don't feel this is being met due to the fact that the house can be used as a group home for up to five residents.

And justification has been provided to show that 10 residents are necessary to cover business operation costs, which again we we cannot base these decisions on.

Number three of the request will be in compliance with all applicable building and fire codes.

This is in review.

There are building permits submitted for for this property.

The request will allow for the maintenance and preservation of the residential characteristics of the neighborhood and will not create a substantial detriment to neighborhood to neighboring properties by creating traffic impacts, parking impacts, impacts on water or sewer systems, or any other similar adverse impacts.

Changing from four to eight bedrooms will change the character of the neighborhood.

We realize that the residents will not be driving, but they will be receiving visitors, and that will create a visible increase in traffic and parking.

And increasing the residents up to 10 will have an impact on water and sewer systems.

And lastly, profitability or financial hardships of the owner service provider of a facility shall not be considered by the zoning administrator in determining to grant a reasonable accommodation waiver.

The justifications provided in the application are largely based on uh profitability and affordability for the residents, and that's not something that we can take into consideration when reviewing these applications to uh increase up to 10 residents, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Um I noticed whenever you were uh discussing traffic impacts, um was there any kind of like traffic impact analysis done on this?

Are these is any of that kind of required for group homes like this?

Board member, um no, those are not required for for these types of applications.

Okay, what is the basis, I guess, of that claim then that it would increase traffic in the area if there was no traffic impact analysis done.

We're we're basing sorry, uh Commission member Smishka chair board or board member Amaro.

I do need to clarify though, um, in the discussions reference for traffic.

Uh we're not intending to use traffic as a basis for making this determination that was not made as part of the zoning manager's administrator's appeal process.

So we are looking to omit the traffic reference in this in this submission at this time.

Um your review is based on the criteria provided in in the report and in the criteria provided by by the applicant.

Uh sorry, this communication was not made with with Robert and myself at this time, but I just wanted to reference that.

That the other reference points about the parking requirements.

That is a separate process, not before you doesn't involve the board of adjustment, it's a separate process from um your all's consideration.

So just just as a note of information only, but not to be used uh in this hearing in deliberation.

So thank you.

Uh thank you.

Thanks.

Uh could you go back to the floor as built floor plan, please?

Okay.

That's okay, great.

Thank you.

Um could you identify the original four bedrooms in the house?

Uh board member Miller.

I don't believe I can.

Um, I did not include a floor plan of the original house.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um moving forward, you mentioned a criteria, I think, criterion, excuse me, um, about changing the interior of the house, uh, fundamentally changing the character of it.

Could you go go to that slide, please?

Yeah, here we go.

Um changing a four-bedroom house to eight will change the character of the neighborhood.

Um how do you determine that?

Board member Miller, it was determined um based on the number of bedrooms that are going to be proposed, the number of residents, um, the number of staff that will be at the house, those will all impact um parking utilities and will change the the character of the neighborhood.

Okay.

Uh not quite sure I see that, but one last question.

Changing it from a four-bedroom house to an eight-bedroom house essentially changes the character of the house, is that correct?

It would, yes.

Okay.

Um we can't make any determination about events which may or may not transpire going forward.

Um, but it would appear that once it is a group home, it's going to stay a group home.

I don't think we can make that determination right now.

Fine, thank you.

Yeah, I have a question about kind of the nexus between the therapeutic um basis that they seem to be to have argued in their second application very well, and obviously here today.

Why would that not be supporting a reasonable accommodation?

Uh board member foy, we believe that that therapeutic um impact and benefit can be achieved with five residents.

Uh we don't believe that ten residents are needed for for that.

And I mean they are basing theirs on kind of medical, you know, letters from medical professionals and and references to medical um and therapeutic support.

What do you what are you basing your your five people can do it just the same?

What are you basing that on?

Just the information that that we received in the in the original and follow-up applications.

Okay.

Where it wasn't it wasn't expanded upon um to to include the the 10 residents.

Okay.

So you the information you received in both packets in your mind did support what they were trying to argue that you need 10 people for it to be beneficial.

The the therapeutic um benefits, you know, we're not we're not trained doctors, so we can't really speak to that.

It was more the assessment that 10 residents are needed to afford financially the business itself to cover the costs of the business.

There are some services that are provided that of course are beneficial to the residents, but we can't make the determination that it can only be provided to 10 residents and not five residents.

Thank you.

Um I'd like to talk about precedent.

So I vividly remember the North Site Siesta appeal from uh 2023 being on the board at that time.

Uh since then, apparently the city's had quite a few of these applications.

Um I'm looking at their summary of about seven of those the city denied to and approved four, and the applicant claims those four are materially identical to this application.

Is she right?

Um Chair Murrow, three of those applications are what we considered grandfathered in.

Um they were approved for 10 residents before the ordinance was adopted in 2021.

So therefore they were they were grandfathered and they were renewed as 10 resident homes since they were previously.

The the fourth one that was approved, as I stated earlier, these are all reviewed individually.

So that one it's difficult to compare each request to each two others since they are reviewed individually.

And speaking of in that with that in mind, that particular applicant and that particular uh approval, um, what was the population that is being served in that facility?

That was 10 residents.

No, what exactly is the nature of the population?

Here we're talking about um elderly individuals with uh disabilities, qualifying disabilities.

Um, what is the population served in that facility that they're citing as a precedent?

It was the same.

It was the same.

Any other questions?

All right, I'll let you know if I come up with something brilliant to ask later.

Um I have to remember the order.

Call the public or rebuttal.

Uh are there any members of the public who wish to be heard on this matter?

Okay, hearing none.

Um, I'd like to invite the applicant to come back up to respond to the city's presentation.

Okay.

Yes, I would like to um address uh a couple of things that were shared.

Um, of course, any any means to support support anyone that has a need does come with financial costs.

However, I don't want it to be um misunderstood for the justification of why 10 residents matter.

And so in terms of as I apply and look at in terms of even with multiple or changing from even if we wanted to move forward and change from four bedrooms.

Does this mean that just because I have a disability, I don't have the right to privacy?

Does this mean because I have a disability that I don't have the right to uh thriving community to live in?

There are certain as well as my background.

I'm a former state inspector, I've been a former state inspector for over 12 years, and I've seen multiple different communities.

Um multiple from from those very very low income and those at the top of the tier.

However, I don't want it to be where it is focused at oh, it's a financial situation, it is not a financial situation.

I want to be in a thriving community.

I want to be in a community that values me.

I want to be in a community that values my privacy that values me as an individual.

So in terms of me having options, options in terms of can I have privacy?

It does not change anything in the residential character.

Do I have the right to privacy?

Do I have the right to uh share share a room with the individual?

Those are all options that would be put in place by that individual.

The main focus is in terms of how can I thrive as an individual with a disability as an aging individual with a disability.

And the way that I thrive is that I can find someone compatible, someone compatible in the same functioning, someone that may be able to do cars and play bingo with me.

However, we all have various different disabilities that limit us in various different areas and parts of life.

So that's one piece that I didn't want to address in terms of the financial means that may have been something that may have been presented.

But however, the clinical and uh nexus is there.

Another piece that I do want to respond to is in terms of the parking.

Um, and we have ensured that we do have suitable parking.

We do have two that are in the main driveway outside, as well as there is available parking that is there to the left, and we have had um individuals, we had professionals that have come over to actually review to ensure that we do have appropriate spacing, which uh we do have that as part of providers where as well for three parking that's out front.

And just adding in terms of nothing will be changed on the outside of the the property.

Um there are a lot of individuals that have a lot of different programs or that live in their own homes that they change various different things at various different levels according to what their preferences are.

However, it doesn't change the character of the outside of the home.

Um that's what I did want to provide in addition for clarity.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any more questions?

Not hearing any.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And that is the end of the uh comment period.

Uh now we open it up to the board for discussions, deliberations, opinions, epiphany.

I'm still not clear as to why I I understand the change in the law, but I don't understand why the evidence that was presented about the therapeutic benefit of having 10 people isn't enough, isn't a reasonable, doesn't support a reasonable accommodation in this case, and that there are other ones that were granted, or at least one other one that was granted, although we don't have the specifics of that um particular case in front of us, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Um I don't know how if anybody else has an answer to that or is has the same issue.

My half-cooked answer, having sat through two of these now.

I feel like they need to connect the therapeutic needs to the specific uh population, as Dr.

Miller was talking about.

You know, I understand generally, like it's she's very convincing that generally it's gonna be better to have more people, the the critical mass of eight to twelve.

But I also think some group homes uh I'm sure do not need that many uh from a clinical perspective, even if they might need it from a financial perspective, which one of the the letter from the RN kind of discussed that.

So I I looking at this from from why did the zoning administrator deny this.

It makes sense to me.

I don't know that I agree with it, but it makes sense to me.

I guess that I'm looking at the evidence that's before us, and it just there doesn't seem to be any evidence to counter directly specifically besides the opinion of the board that uh the zoning commissioner that it's the same, whereas there was lots of evidence that she presented that says that having 10 people actually is very beneficial.

And I'm not saying that I disagree with the commissioner, I'm just saying it just doesn't make sense to me.

And I I'm really uh I'm I'm on the fence, I don't know what I'm gonna do.

I did just want to weigh in on the um evidence about whether it's better to have five versus ten residents.

I did look at some of the sources that were cited.

Um there aren't very many that explicitly say it's better to have more residents.

Um, the one that was cited, I was not able to find an actual source on.

So I did just want to throw that in there.

Thank you.

That helps.

And I guess I was also looking at the letters that were actually included in the the evidence from the nurse that's that stated that having more, I think eight to twelve was the critical mass.

Um, but that helps.

Thanks.

Um I'll speak to that briefly.

Um in a prior life I worked for a company that ran group homes amongst various other things that we did.

And none of them had more than six residents at the time.

Um that was a decision that we made had to do with staffing.

Um perhaps the residents there were a bit more uh challenging, a bit more challenged than the ones that are uh going to be here, I think.

The difficulty that I find here is that there is a degree of compelling information that suggests that increasing the number of individuals potentially interacting together does have some therapeutic benefit.

But on the other hand, at what point this one stop.

Maybe we could say 15 would be better than 10.

You know, you could talk to people at Mirabella, there's who have that same situation.

There's a lot of interaction going on there.

Possibly it has to do more with the nature and personalities and capabilities of the individuals who are resident there than the sheer number of them.

And you know, selecting, I mean, it is a selective process after all.

To identify who goes into that situation.

Um I'm torn both ways on on this as well, and I'm really I'm not sure that the city made a very a totally compelling argument about saying that the nexus was not demonstrated.

On the other hand, it's mostly anecdotal.

That was anecdotal information that was presented also.

Um I you know, maybe there's more clinical and clinical data that shows interactions over time do have a benefit.

But I didn't see that being presented.

I saw a lot of opinions of people who are who work in the field.

So their opinion matters, but you know, if you're looking if you're looking at data, I'm not sure that I saw a lot of that.

No, I think there was just the one that was included in our actual packet.

There was just the one from the nurse.

Um but yeah, I mean, I am kind of I wish there was more evidence that we could look at regarding that that issue.

Um, you know, even studies or something that we weren't presented with because that is kind of the issue that I feel is important in this case, and I don't know if it's valid or not beyond what letter said similarly.

I'm in the same boat of being torn both ways.

Um that is clear to me, and maybe we can dig into a little bit is the uh the evidence of 19 other group homes in the two mile radius still functioning at five with a captain.

Um I understand there might be a preferred housing set up in these group homes, but I'm not sure if that is a uh barrier of not being able to have the accommodation we've waiver.

Are we sure that all those 19 homes are are five?

Um we might have the guy who has the answer.

Yes, um, just to clarify those group homes, they're of various group homes, so they could be assisted living, they could be um I have the I have them here, what they could be behavioral health residential facilities, um, child care care homes.

So there's a variety of homes, and I do not have the information as to how many of those are beyond the five residents.

Let me ask you this question.

The homes that we that she listed as kind of they were approved by you guys, and they went from five to ten.

I know a couple of them were grandfathered in.

How close are they to this residence?

Do you know?

Board member Foy, one of them is within this two mile radius.

The other three I did not map, unfortunately, so I'm not sure if they are within this two mile radius.

Well, we have you.

Um in the what four years since the ordinance changed, taking it from 10 to 5.

I'm assuming we've still approved group homes in that time.

Do we have to approve group homes that are under five or five or less?

Actually, that's I'm sorry.

Oh, yes.

Uh oh.

For separation requirements, uh, the 1200 foot separation requirements.

That is that is what we look at for group homes up to five residents.

Okay, and I'm assuming we've you or people in the city's office have looked at some number of applicants in the last four years for that.

Can you ballpark it?

If if you can't, that's fine.

Um I I cannot, I'm sorry.

That's that's okay.

I put you on the spot.

Uh do we have any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Um I mean, I can just say personally anecdotally, the two family members uh that I have who are living in group homes, it's probably six or less for both of them.

One of them is three.

Um so it certainly can be done.

I'm concerned that if we accept in a very general sense that 10 is clinically better than five, then we sort of have just the the exception then absorbs the rule and and it just becomes a a we've sort of just undone the city's code change.

I I would agree with that.

And then Mike's not and again, that's kind of why I'm on the on the fence.

Like I think there's some indication, but I don't know that there's enough, and I am concerned about that same thing.

The city made it five, they changed the law for a reason, and I don't want to just say, well, we're gonna make a decision and negate that rule change.

I mean, with with one accommodation granted in the last four years.

We know that given we don't know exactly why, but we know that given the right circumstances, the city is willing to grant an accommodation.

Um if it's specific enough, I think, to that applicant.

And I I think that was what was missing here in the presentation.

It wasn't specific enough to what they were planning to do at the facility for me.

I think I think that at this point, yeah.

My problem is going to continue.

It's not gonna go away.

I don't have enough information to to get that to that nexus.

I don't I wasn't presented enough in uh information, so I I think that that's why and I don't know who I'm asking, but procedurally, if we deny this, can they refile another application at some point in the future?

It this isn't like uh I know Eric's sitting there.

I'm thinking about claim preclusion.

He's shaking his head.

So uh I think it's important for the board to understand that um this would not foreclose further legal proceedings.

So um if there was a there could be a potential lawsuit for failure to deny a reasonable accommodation, excuse me, failure to grant a reasonable requirement.

So uh this would not be binding on any court in that that procedure, so I'll clarify that.

As far as whether they can reapply under the city's code, I'll let Ryan answer that question.

I want the board to understand that um this proceeding here.

Um a court can very well second guess your judgment, whatever that judgment may be.

So yes, thank you.

And uh under uh decisions made uh through a decision making body that that approval period or that decision period is valid for one year, so someone can make another request a year after that decision.

Um and the current application as well, they could certainly have the rights to to modify the request and continue to forward with because they meet the other separation requirements identified in the group home with with up to five if they so choose to proceed.

Thank you.

Any other comments, opinions speak speak down?

All right, does anyone want to make a motion?

I make a motion to deny the appeal.

I will second it with with personal reluctance, but I'll second it.

Oh I I will second.

Okay.

I forgot I wasn't supposed to, yeah.

So we gotta have our Roberts rules update.

Okay, so I have a motion and a second, and I have stated my soapbox opinions.

Um we'll do a roll call vote from the list.

Um Andrea, how do you vote?

I uh Andrea votes aye.

Lily, how do you vote?

I Lily votes aye.

Mary motioned I vote aye.

Katie, how do you vote?

Aye.

And Robert was the second.

So the motion carries six to zero.

Um motion uh I think I was motion uh uh denying the request for an appeal.

Oh we need to make sure that those who made the motion and second also vote.

Ah I vote aye.

I vote aye.

I was a little presumptuous.

Um so the the request for an appeal, the denial of the reasonable accommodation waiver for 1354 East Ben Bentrop Drive, our number PL 250207 is denied six to zero.

Next item, chair staff updates and announcements.

Uh I heard we have a meeting for December 17th.

I should be here.

Um do we know what it's about?

Do you have a preview?

Uh it's an appeal, right?

It's an appeal of a zoning administrator's opinion.

Interesting.

Okay.

Uh hopefully we'll see everyone there.

Um, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

We have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Robert seconds.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

And we are adjourned at exactly 7 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.