It was standing room only for the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing last night about a proposed group home at 320 Lake Ave.
First off a disclaimer – I haven’t followed this case in detail and I just happened to be at City Hall last night and stumbled on the hearing. These are just my off-the-cuff impressions after sitting in for a fraction of the hearing … so feel free to jump in and add corrections, clarifications, etc.
Here’s the details as I understand it. A group of families with intellectually disabled children, banded together and bought a five bedroom house on Lake Ave. The house is intended to be a group home, modeled after a similar successful group home at 173 Lincoln St. The group applied for a permit to build 2700 square foot addition and the permit was granted. The completed house is intended to house 10 residents plus 2 full time staff.
A group of neighbors challenged the granting of the permit and believe that the project can only go forward by first receiving a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
I saw the last half of the neighbors presentation last night. Most of what I heard were concerns about various issues that they are worried about – e.g. traffic, parking, noise, density.
I then heard 2/3 of the presentation by the lawyer representing Specialized Housing Inc who would be running the home. His presentation focused entirely on the legal issues. According to him, under both Federal and State fair housing laws, for the purposes of zoning, group homes must be considered exactly like a standard single family home. If a family bought this same house, and build this same 2700 sq ft addition, it would be in complete compliance with all zoning requirements (setbacks, FAR, etc). If the city were to require this project to go through the Special Permitting process, while a family would not, then the city would be in clear violation of various fair housing laws.
The questions from the board focused primarily on the two apartments for the two staff people. He was asked if these were “Accessory Apartments” and he said “no”. He was asked if a family were to ask to build an accessory apartment in this building would they need a Special Permit and he said “yes”. He then went on to say that under fair housing laws, the staff apartments were part of the group home itself, and could not be treated as Accessory Apartments for zoning purposes. They asked whether other people could live in those apartments and he said “only a spouse or children of the staff”.
If everything the lawyer said was true, it sounded to me like the neighbors don’t have much of a legal leg to stand on … but then again, I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t hear the rest of the presentation or any rebuttal to any of his statements.
So if any of you were there for the whole hearing and have more information, feel free to add it below.
Sounds like a great opportunity, but as a basic a this would be owned by an entity, not a family — so not sure where the lawyer was going with the “single family home” concept.
@Hoss – Yes it would be owned by an entity. The lawyer’s claim was that under the state and federal fair housing laws, the city must treat an entity that is building a group a home in the same way as it would treat an individual home owner.
I reiterate that I don’t know if this is legally true, I’m just parroting what I think I heard in his testimony.
Having worked in a group home for people w/intellectual disabilities many years ago, I have trouble imagining this would substantially add to noise or traffic. These aren’t going to be rowdy college students cranking the stereo and getting drunk – staff members will be supervising. The residents are unlikely to have drivers licenses, so the traffic would be staff and visitors. My guess would be that the noise and traffic wouldn’t be more than would be generated by a family with 4 kids who have 2 working parents and employ a nanny (not that unusual in Newton) would generate.
If the group home was in this case permanent housing and in another case temporary (a college dormitory), and the two cases got different treatment, that wouldn’t feel right. The idea of adding space specifically to accommodate more tenants (not blood relations), seems like the reason accessory apartment rules are in place. I do hope they get what they need, just play the Newton-way
Hi Jerry,
Good reporting! I had an interest in this case not only as a citizen of Newton and neighbor of the Highlands, but also my firm performed as project structural engineers for this SHI project as well as their project on Lincoln Street. I was present for the entire meeting.
There were three major complaints by the neighbors:
1. This project, with housing for 10 unrelated adults, is not allowed under Newton zoning ordinances and can only go forward via Newton’s special permit process. The neighbors asserted that Building Commissioner John Lojak issued a “by right” building permit in error.
2. The inclusion of two accessory apartments would also only be allowed under special permit.
3. There is less parking than allowed by our ordinances for 10 single adults and two staff.
In response the project owners successfully argued (based upon the final vote) that fair housing laws governing disabled individuals require that this type of housing be treated as a single-family home, with no zoning restrictions that would not also apply to a single family home. Would the physical construction of this project be allowed if this were being renovated as a single family home (it would) it must be allowed for this type of group home.
There was consensus among both the neighbors and the owners that inclusion of two “accessory apartments” would have been a zoning non-conformity requiring a special permit from the BOA. But the owners of 320 Lake Street argued, again successfully, that these spaces, designated to house live-in staff that provides services to the residents, are not accessory apartments but are “accessory use” as they are integral to the living and supervision model developed by SHI. Therefore no special permit is required.
Finally, because this project is viewed by the local zoning ordinance as a single family home, there is only a two-space parking requirement, well below the 5-6 spaces found currently on the site.
The appeal by the neighbors to withdraw the building permit and require the owners to apply for a special permit was voted down by the ZBA 4-0, with one member abstaining.
A final note: Chair Brooke Lipsett was terrific in keeping the large and potentially boisterous crowd under control with clear directions, respectful discourse, and humor. The meeting lasted 4 hours!
@Steve – Thanks for the report on the rest of the meeting and more importantly – the results of the ZBA vote.
Very interesting conclusion. If it was that cut and dry, why didn’t they skip the meeting through an injunction? In any event, looks like good news for the moment…
@Steve – thank you for the summary. I’m very happy to hear the result. I have lived across the street from such a residence in the past and found it did not cause any problems with noise, traffic or parking. This sort of group home is so important for allowing people w/intellectual disabilities to gain some independence from their parents while still living near their families and in their communities.
I was very happy to hear about this outcome. One of the parents of a disabled resident works with my husband and we were privy to some of the emails going on on that side. Having had a de-facto fraternityrent a house next to mine for a hellish year, I have to assume that our zoning laws are meant to protect homeowners from situations such as that, not an opportunity for disabled adults to live independently.
A lot of the residents, from what I understand, have families in Newton.
It would have been total hypocrisy of Newton’s purported values, for us to raise our children to “understand our differences” so diligently, and then deny disabled people from our own community the right to “full inclusion” when it comes to living here.
The right decision was made.
Thank you Jerry and Steve Siegel for reporting on this. I am happy to hear the outcome of the ZBA. I work with a gentlemen that has an intellectually disabled grown daughter who lives in a similar house. As an outside observer it seems so important to have these housing options available. My co-worker’s daughter has a small job and learns how to live on our her own (of course there is supervision). She is an only child and was adopted this co-worker and his wife, who are now in 70’s. This independent living situation will better prepare their daughter for living without them some day.
Here’s Trevor Jones story about the meeting in the Newton Tab
I am glad the ZBA got it right, and that there was such broad support from the public. I would like to point out, however, that the same laws that protect intellectually disabled adults in congregate living facilities also apply to housing for formerly homeless people who suffer from mental illness or are recovering alcohol or substance abusers. By which I mean, of course, Engine 6.
I was also pleased that ZBA Chair Brooke Lipsitt suggested to the aldermen present at the meeting that they fix the Newton ordinance requiring a special permit. I have docketed an item that addresses that very issue.
@Ted – I think Engine 6 was a different case. It wasn’t a zoning issue about a requirement for a Special Permit.
There may have been other issues involving Fair Housing laws, but it was definitely a different scenario.
Does this type of situation fit the definition of “Affordable Housing”?
Jerry, in its Hasseltine House and 320 Lake Avenue decisions, the ZBA relied upon anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and the Massachusetts Zoning Act, Chapter 40A, Section 3, to uphold Commissioner Lojek’s issuance of a building permit without requiring the owners to seek a special permit because the residents have disabilities. With Engine 6, the city failed to make reasonable accommodations and discriminated against people with disabilities by imposing requirements for funding (for which the Housing Partnership and Planning Board both recommended approval) and support for zoning relief based largely on the disabled status of some of the residents and purported lack of services in the neighborhood, which it has not imposed on other affordable housing projects located in residential neighborhoods around the city. While the circumstances may differ, the laws and principles are the same.
In Granada v. City of Boston, involving a group home for recovering alcohol and substance abusers, the court said the Fair Housing Act required the city to make reasonable accommodations to allow the group home to locate in a residential neighborhood. Moreover, the court affirmed that, even if the city were not required to make reasonable accommodations, the Massachusetts Zoning Act, Chapter 40A, Section 3, barred discriminatory treatment of a group home for recovering alcohol and substance abusers. Significantly, the court noted that “[i]n the circumstances of the present case, the City has advanced no substantial reasons for treating the residents of Granada House differently from those of a permitted group home for mentally ill, mentally retarded, or other persons with disabilities.”
Wow, in the Engine 6 matter, the one person in Newton gov’t empowered to make a financial decision concerning special funds made a decision that it was not a good investment. It’s fair not to agree w that person, but to say something as if it was legal fact and not an opinion just ain’t right.
Hoss, I am a lawyer. I am arguing a legal position. That is what I do.
I’ll move on — but your first sentence is not an argument, it’s fact. You’re saying your second sentence is argument. There’s nothing there to tell them apart unless you’re someone knows more about the matter. You can carefully insert the words “the city”, but everyone knows you’re talking about one person. I don’t think you’d mention a person’s name in this way (without clarity that it was your assertion, not a finding)