DATE: Sunday, April 20, 1997                TAG: 9704180220

SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS     PAGE: 02   EDITION: FINAL 

COLUMN: IDA KAY'S PORTSMOUTH 

SOURCE: Ida Kay Jordan 

                                            LENGTH:   66 lines

OBJECTIONS TO REZONING FOR FACILITY MAKE SENSE

City Councilman Cameron Pitts really got his back up over the notion of changing a city zoning ordinance to permit residential care facilities in single-family neighborhoods.

``This violates the sanctity of single-family neighborhoods,'' Pitts said.

The issue revolved around a request from Paul Battle to expand his residential care business in Cavalier Manor. He already operates a home for five persons that is non-conforming in the neighborhood, where he lives several blocks away from his business.

Battle claimed at a recent City Council meeting that his expansion to permit 11 residents would not harm the neighborhood. His request was denied, but the ordinance that would make it easy for him to expand will get a second reading Tuesday night.

The residential facilities were permitted throughout the city prior to 1995, when council rezoned many neighborhoods from multifamily zoning designations to single-family classifications. This action made most residential care homes with four or more clients legal non-conforming land uses and precluded any expansion of existing homes as well as any additional facilities in most neighborhoods.

This seems like it was a good way to handle it.

A person who wants to keep some people in his or her own home to perform a service or to earn a little spending money could take in up to four persons with a state license - and no city sanction. Only when someone makes a business out of residential care facilities and desires to increase the capacity would they be denied.

Under the proposed change, the residential care permitted would take a whole new turn. Residential care could be operated as a business, many times without the owner in residence, as is the case with Paul Battle. In a single-family neighborhood, that is not good.

I can understand why people in Cavalier Manor came to oppose his expansion.

Already, certain small group homes, eight or fewer clients, are permitted no matter what the zoning. These are family care residences for children or adults that are licensed by the State Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services. That seems like enough to foist onto a single-family neighborhood.

Some of Portsmouth's older neighborhoods are testimonials to the problems. In many places, not only do residents have to contend with absentee-owner duplexes and larger rentals, but they also have group homes run as businesses, which means staff coming and going 24 hours a day, and parking problems. The problems usually don't arise from the private homes where several persons are cared for by the owner-occupant. They come from institutional businesses - or what might be called hotels.

I don't think people who fear encroachment on their single-family neighborhoods are opposed to having the residents in their midst. They are opposed to having too many residents in one place.

Pitts may be right in his assessment that changing the code would violate the sanctity of single-family residential areas. Also, changing the code probably could cause some deterioration in neighborhoods that are already tenuous. People fear the unknown and hesitate to buy into a place if they can't be certain what is going to be next door in a few years.

Portsmouth has enough problems attracting new homeowners. It doesn't need to make people feel any more uneasy about the single-family neighborhoods.

Pitts said he is not trying to be adversarial.

``I just think we're on the wrong track here,'' he said.

I've often told Pitts that the city doesn't need seven council members like him. But it does need at least one to take a stand when things like this come up. His observations bear a hearing.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu