Loading...
VI.1. Resolution Upholding The Accommodation Specialist’s Denial Of The Request For Reasonable Accommodation For 101 Oakwood Road; Riggs CITY OF HOPKINS City Council Report 2023-007 To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Mike Mornson, City Manager PeggySue Imihy Bean, AICP, Management Analyst January 3, 2023 Resolution Upholding The Accommodation Specialist’s Denial Of The Request For Reasonable Accommodation For 101 Oakwood Road _____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION MOTION TO approve Resolution 2023-001 Upholding the Accommodation Specialist’s Denial of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation to the Definition of the Family Under the City Code for 101 Oakwood Road. OVERVIEW On June 10, 2022, the applicant, Mr. Kevin Stanton submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow for nine (9) occupants who are disabled due to alcoholism to live at 101 Oakwood Road. Mr. Stanton currently operates the home at this address as a sober living facility which is licensed by the City as a rental home for four (4) residents. After review of the application and public comments, Staff determined that the request was denied for the reasons outlined in detail in the letter of denial sent to the applicant on October 7, 2022. The applicant, Mr. Stanton, has requested an appeal of this decision on November 7, 2022, and the appeal was heard by the City Council on December 6, 2022. At that time, the City Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to develop a findings of fact for denial. The application, comments, and all information related to this application can be found here. Tonight, Staff has prepared a resolution affirming the denial in this matter to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Staff and the City Attorney will be available for any questions. SUPPORTING INFORMATION •Resolution 2023-001 - Upholding the Accommodation Specialist’s Denial of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation to the Definition of Family Under the City Code for 101 Oakwood Road Administration 1 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2023-001 A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE ACCOMMODATION SPECIALIST’S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY UNDER THE CITY CODE FOR 101 OAKWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin Stanton (the “Applicant”), submitted a written request for a reasonable accommodation for the property located at 101 Oakwood, Hopkins, MN (the “Property”) in accordance with City Code, section 1-21; and WHEREAS, the requested accommodation is from City Code, Part III, Chapter 102, Article I., Sec. 102-4 – the definition of “family” – to allow nine unrelated individuals to occupy one dwelling unit and City Code, Article V, Section 102-160 and 102-161 – permitted uses per R Districts – to allow the operation of a sober home (the “Request”). WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. On June 10, 2022, City staff received the reasonable accommodation Request from Kevin Stanton – the application originally included information regarding a variance request, which was later clarified and confirmed not to be a variance request but instead was part of the reasonable accommodation Request; 2. On July 22, 2022, City staff sent the Applicant a letter confirming that a decision would be made by October 8, 2022; 3. On October 7, 2022, the Accommodation Specialist issued her decision to deny the Request as provided in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution; 4. On November 7, 2022, the Applicant requested that the City Council hear an appeal of the Accommodation Specialists; and 5. On December 6, 2022, the Applicant presented his appeal to the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard the Applicant’s appeal and reviewed the record in the present matter, makes the following determination pursuant to City Code, section 1-21 (h). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Accommodation Specialist’s decision, and the entire record of the present matter, the City Council hereby upholds the Accommodation Specialist’s denial of the requested accommodation – to allow the Applicant to operate a sober home consisting of up to nine unrelated persons residing together on the Property where the City Code allows for no more than four – based upon the following findings of facts: 2 1. Based upon the Applicant’s Request, the proposed use – a sober home – would classify the Property as eligible for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (collectively, the “Act”). Specifically, houses which provide communal living to individuals with alcohol addiction have been found to be eligible for reasonable accommodations, as chemical dependency is generally a qualifying disability under the Act. 2. Pursuant to the Act, the Applicant bears the initial burden of establishing that their request is both reasonable and necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to housing. If the Applicant makes the requisite showing, the City may consider evidence that the requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration to its policies, or in the zoning context the neighborhood, and/or whether the requested accommodation would constitute an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. 3. The Accommodation Specialist determined that the Request was not reasonable or necessary, and also provided for the determination that the request would result in a fundamental alteration to the City’s policies, the proposed use would result in an inappropriate intensification of the current use of the Property, and that the requested accommodation would constitute an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. 4. The City Council specifically finds as follows: a. The Applicant did not provide information establishing that the residents at the Property would meet the definition of being disabled or handicapped as defined in the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). During the appeal process, the Applicant agreed to provide screening criteria for future residents, however, the Applicant also never addressed whether the fourth current resident meets the definition of being disabled and never actually provided any screening criteria. b. The Applicant did not provide adequate information showing that without the accommodation that individuals who are disabled due to alcoholism will not have the opportunity to live in the housing of their choice. The property is currently being used as a sober home and denying the accommodation does not result in individuals who meet the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism being barred from the Interlachen Park neighborhood, any particular zoning district, or the City of Hopkins. c. The Applicant did not provide sufficient information to show that if the accommodation is not granted, the business will not be financially viable. The Applicant provided a table of expenses and revenues which shows that rent charged is $650 per resident, but provided no additional justification as to why $650 is reasonable and why nine individuals are necessary to make 3 the Property financially viable. The Applicant also did not provide a justification as to why $300 in reserves was reasonable. During the appeal, the Applicant provided that $650 was the amount he believed was reasonable based on his experience operating sober homes, but did not provide any additional information. The Applicant did, inappropriately, request that the Accommodation Specialist opine on the reasonableness of the reserves included in the table of expenses – it is the Applicant’s responsibility to show why the provided amount is necessary. d. The Applicant did not provide that the increase was therapeutically necessary. While increasing the number of individuals at a sober home is proposed as being beneficial, the information provided does not establish that increasing the number of individuals at the Property to nine is necessary or even essential to the therapeutic environment at the Property. Additionally, the anonymous letters purportedly from current residents state that the sober home is operating successfully with four residents. e. The Applicant has a history of attempting to skirt applicable regulations, including with the City of Hopkins. This includes when the Applicant purchased the Property in 2018 and subsequently began renting the Property to more than the allowed number of residents without an accommodation or rental license. Subsequently, the Applicant did obtain a rental license but refused to allow the City to inspect the Property, as is required as part of the rental license, and instead required the City to work with his attorney, which required the City Attorney’s involvement, to schedule the inspection. f. Since the Applicant purchased the Property in 2018, there has been a 100% increase in the number of police calls to the Property when comparing the three years prior to the Applicant’s purchase (2014-2017) to the three years since the purchase (2019-2022) – the City of Hopkins has seen a 7.62% decrease and the Interlachen Park Neighborhood has seen an 11.46% decrease in the number of police calls when comparing those same two periods. g. Granting the Request would result in a fundamental shift to the zoning practices of the City by intensifying the allowed use to more than double the number of individuals staying at the Property. h. The Property may not be appropriate for a sober home because of the current layout – the Property contains nine bedrooms, and it is not clear whether residents would be able to share bedrooms, which is a noted and important factor to recovery from alcoholism. Additionally, the Property has not been inspected to determine whether the proposed layout is appropriate for nine individuals to live based on applicable building code standards. 4 i. The Applicant has provided that not more than five vehicles will be parked at the property at any given time, however the Applicant previously represented that current residents would not park on the street and numerous community comments noted that this promise was not adhered to. Additionally, the current layout of the Property is not suited to allow even up to five vehicles to enter and exit the Property without coordination with other drivers. This is concerning to the City because the next door neighbor provided that a resident of the Property drove over the neighbor’s property causing damage to the neighbor’s property, including to an inground sprinkler system. Increasing the number of residents and number of cars at the Property will not lessen the occurrence of parking issues. j. Granting the requested accommodation would require the City to establish a more rigorous and frequent inspection schedule, auditing the Applicant’s compliance with the terms of the reasonable accommodation, and establishing new criteria for a single property to ensure the safety of residents and neighbors. These additional measures would be necessary given the intensification of the use and the Applicant’s history of failing to adhere to established health and safety requirements and his evidenced history of lack of honesty. These necessary additional requirements would result in a departure from established City policies. k. The Applicant’s history of a lack of honesty and documented lack of control is also concerning to the City, especially given that individuals in recovery are generally considered to be a vulnerable population. l. In response to the Accommodation Specialist’s decision, specifically the inclusion of the Applicant’s history of lack of honesty, lack of control in interactions with others, and inability to adhere to established health and safety requirements, the Applicant claimed the City displayed animus towards the Applicant. Ignoring the Applicant’s past actions would be a dereliction of the City’s responsibility to protect the general safety and welfare of all community members of the City of Hopkins. Including these factors as part of determining whether the request for a reasonable accommodation is prudent and does not evidence animus towards the Applicant. If the Applicant’s argument were to be correct, the City could not consider that the Applicant admitted to purchasing alcohol for a participant in another sober home, which would be an absurd result. m. The Applicant’s actions during the proceeding, including calling and screaming at the Accommodation Specialist to change the applicant from “Kevin Stanton” to “ninety n ninety LLC” and stating that he would “fire Kevin Stanton” and apply using the LLC or a different name in an attempt to not address his past behavior is concerning to the City and does not support that granting the requested accommodation would be in the best interest of public safety and welfare. 5 5. Based on the foregoing, the City Council has determined that the requested accommodation is neither reasonable nor necessary and is therefore denied. Further, the City Council finds that if the accommodation request were reasonable and necessary, the evidence supports a finding that the accommodation, if granted, would constitute a fundamental alteration of the neighborhood and would further create an undue administrative and financial burden for the City, and therefore must be denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins that all recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the City Council and denial of the Applicant’s appeal. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 3rd day of January, 2023. By:___________________________ Patrick Hanlon, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk