***AGENDA***

SPECIAL MEETING
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
THIRD FLOOR – CITY HALL
801 PLUM STREET

February 10, 2009

5:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER

DISCUSSION ITEMS
(Each speaker will have a 5-minute time limit

ITEM #1 §1400-29 Multiple Uses in a Structure

ITEM #2 §1401-01 Definitions
ITEM #3 §1401-01-C3 Charitable Organizations definition
ITEM #4 §1401-01-C4 Chronically Homeless definition
ITEM #5 §1401-01-C14 Community Service Facility definition
ITEM #6 §1401-01-C16 Congregate Housing
ITEM #7 §1401-01 D6 Disabling Condition definition
ITEM #8 §1401-01-D7 Dormitory definition
ITEM #9 §1401-01-H4 Homeless Person
ITEM #10 §1401-01-H6 Housing First Model definition
ITEM #11 §1401-01-H7 Human Service Facilities definition
ITEM #12 §1401-01-H8 Human Service Multi-Use Center definition
ITEM #13 §1401-01-N2 Nonprofit Organization definition
ITEM #14 §1401-01-R7 Religious Assembly definition
ITEM #15 §1401-01-S11 Soup Kitchen, full service, (NEW)
ITEM #16 §1401-01-S12 Soup Kitchen, limited service, definition
ITEM #17 §1401-01-S13 Special Assistance Shelter definition
ITEM #18 §1401-01-S17 Supportive Housing definition
ITEM #19 §1405-05 Use Regulations Residential Multi-family Districts
ITEM #20 §1407-05 Use Regulations Office Districts
ITEM #21 §1409-07 Use Regulations Commercial Districts
ITEM #22 §1410-05 Use Regulations Urban Mix District
ITEM #23 §1411-05 Use Regulations Downtown Development Districts
ITEM #24 §1413-05 Use Regulations Manufacturing Districts
ITEM #25 §1415-05 Use Regulations Riverfront Districts
ITEM #26 §1417-03 Use Regulations Institutional Residential Districts
ITEM #27 §1419-18 Human Service Facilities, additional regulations
ITEM #28 §1419-19 Human Service Multi-Use Center, additional regulations
ITEM #29 §1419-26 Soup Kitchens, additional regulations (NEW)
ITEM #30 §1419-27 Special Assistance Shelter, additional regulations
ITEM #31 §1419-28 Supportive Housing, additional regulations
ITEM #32 §1425-19 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements

ADJOURN
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Code text amendments related to the regulation of social service
uses.

INTRODUCTION
The real and perceived impact of social service agencies on individual neighborhoods has been a
source of considerable controversy in the City of Cincinnati (“City”) for many years. The most
recent debate over the location of social service agencies stems directly from a 2007 court
decision that revealed deficiencies in the City’s Zoning Code. This court decision overturned the
City’s Zoning Board of Appeals finding that CityLink was a “community service facility”, which
was a prohibited use at its chosen location on Bank Street in the West End community. City
Council and the City Planning Commission felt that all uses should be sited only in those areas
that the City determined to be appropriate and not as a result of unintended loopholes in the
Zoning Code. To this end, staff was directed to amend the Zoning Code to include clear
definitions of social service agencies and to specify the zoning districts that would permit these
uses. The following narrative outlines the overarching issues associated with the siting and
definition of social service agencies in the Zoning Code and included the efforts of Cincinnati’s
administrative and elected bodies as well as the Social Services Committee (“SSC”) to address
these issues.

BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2005 the Director of Buildings and Inspections (“Director”) determined that the
CityLink Center (“CityLink”) project located at 810 (a.k.a. 800) Bank Street was a permitted use
in the Manufacturing General (“MG”) zoning district, and issued a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance certifying the intended use of the property for professional offices, transitional
housing, recreational facilities, and an accessory daycare. CityLink is a nonprofit corporation
organized by various churches and ministries to establish a centralized hub of services that will
assist low-income persons in becoming more fully contributing members of society. CityLink
selected a five-acre parcel with two vacant buildings located at 800 Bank Street in the West End
neighborhood of Cincinnati after conducting a search from the Norwood Lateral Expressway
(Ohio State Route 562) to the Ohio River. CityLink intended to lease space to four main tenants:
(1) Jobs Plus, which provides job placement, training and other employment services; (2)
Crossroads Health Center, which provides health screenings, dental care, pregnancy tests and
wellness services; (3) The Lord's Gym, which provides weight-lifting, exercise and wellness
programs; and (4) City Gospel Mission, which provides long-term transitional housing for
people involved in CityLink's programs” (CityLink Ctr. V. City of Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio 5873,
p4, ¶3. Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007). The center was also to include a cafe, a daycare
center, a barber, and a beauty salon. Each entity had a separate legal identity, separate governing
boards, and independent control over the services provided to clients. After receiving the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance, CityLink purchased the property at 800 Bank Street for $14
million.

1
On December 30, 2005, the West End Community Council (“WECC”) appealed the decision of
the Director to the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”). The ZBA heard the appeal on February
13, 2006 and in its decision dated March 10, 2006 the ZBA overturned the Director’s decision,
finding that it was inconsistent with the intent and language of the Zoning Code. In a three-two
decision the ZVA determined that the Certificate of Zoning Compliance was issued in error
because the CityLink facility was best classified collectively as a “Community Service Facility”,
which was not a permitted use in a MG zoning district. (Cincinnati ZBA, 2006).
CityLink then appealed the decision of the ZBA to the Hamilton County Court of Common
Pleas. On July 26, 2006, a magistrate determined the ZBA finding that CityLink was a
community service facility “that was not permitted in the MG district was supported by the
preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence” (CiytLink Ctr. V. City of
Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio 5873, p6, ¶8. Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007). Further, the
magistrate rejected CityLink's argument that individually, the proposed uses were permitted in
MG zoning districts stating, “[e]ach individual entity would contribute to CityLink’s obvious
philanthropic purpose. The purpose of the facility, and not its individual functional uses, is what
makes CityLink a community service facility” (CityLink Ctr. V. City of Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio
5873, p6, ¶8. Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007).
CityLink filed objections on August 2, 2006. Oral arguments were made before the trial court on
November 2, 2006. On November 22, 2006, the trial court sustained CityLink’s objections and
reversed the ZBA’s decision for the following reasons: “(1) the proposed uses of CityLink were
permitted in the MG district; (2) CityLink was not a community service facility because its
services were not limited to the community or neighborhood where it was to be located, and
because it had many commercial aspects; and (3) the ZBA had not made the required findings
and thus could not have overturned the director's decision. Accordingly, the trial court ordered
that a Zoning Certificate of Compliance be reissued to CityLink”. (CityLink Ctr. V. City of
Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio 5873, p6, ¶8. Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007). The decision also
stated “the ZBA decision amounted to a constructive taking of CityLink’s property rights”
(CityLink Ctr. V. City of Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio 5873, p14, ¶32. Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County
2007).
The City, the WECC, Omar Childress, and various allied individuals then appealed the trial court
judgment reversing the decision of the ZBA to the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First
Appellant District of Ohio (“Court of Appeals”). On November 2, 2007, the Court of Appeals
issued a two-one decision that affirmed the judgment of the trial court stating that the ZBA
decision was unreasonable, not supported by a preponderance of substantial evidence and the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance should stand. (CityLink Ctr. V. City of Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio
5873, Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007). Judge Dinkelacker, the dissenting judge, stated
that CityLink’s Articles of Incorporation clearly indicated that it was organized exclusively for
charitable purposes and was a nonprofit. Judge Dinkelacker went on to state that "the ZBA
decision was reasonable" and that "the trial court should have affirmed the ZBA’s decision
regardless of whether the court agreed with it." (CityLink Ctr. V. City of Cincinnati, 2007, Ohio
5873, p20, ¶50, Ohio Ct. App. Hamilton County 2007). Judge Dinkelacker would have reversed
the trial court’s judgment and reinstated the decision of the ZBA. Following this decision, the
Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept the appeal filed by the City, WECC, and Omar
Childress. On April 17, 2008, CityLink officially applied for building permits for the project.

2
After the Court of Appeals issued its decision, City Council submitted Motion #200800062 on
January 15, 2008 directing staff to amend the Zoning Code to accomplish the following:
1. Replace the term community service facility with social service facility and
clarify the definition.
2. Define the term community.
3. Define the term commercial.
4. Amend the definition of transitional housing to specify that units cannot
consist of dormitory-style sleeping arrangements and to provide numeric
limitations to the number of residents.
5. Define the terms short term, long term, and transitional.
6. Amend the definition of special assistance shelter to provide numeric
limitations on the number of residents.
Staff drafted a series of text amendments in response to City Council’s motion and presented the
proposed changes to the City Planning Commission on April 18, 2008. The City Planning
Commission tabled the amendments and directed staff to work with social service providers and
community residents to develop the necessary text amendments. A public meeting was held on
May 15, 2008 with social service providers and neighborhood representatives in attendance.
Following this meeting, the Social Service Committee (“SSC”) was established to continue these
initial discussions and to develop text amendments that would address the definitions, location,
and concentration of social service agencies in the City. Approximately forty individuals signed
up to work on this committee.
An organizational meeting of the SSC was held on June 5, 2008. At that meeting, the SSC
decided it would attempt to complete any text amendments in time for the City Planning
Commission’s review in September. To that end, four subcommittees were established to work
on different issues:
1. Providers and Best Practices.
2. Impacts and Concentration.
3. Best Zoning Practices and Definitions.
4. Churches- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA).
The SSC met through the summer to work on the assigned tasks. The final meeting of the SSC
was held in October 2008.
Shortly after the SSC’s first meeting, the Economic Development Committee of City Council
adopted Resolution No. 41-2008 on June 25, 2008 “directing the City Administration to adhere
to the policy that social service agencies and programming shall not be concentrated in a single
geographic area and shall not locate in an area that is deemed impacted” (Resolution No. 41-
2008) The resolution directed the City Manager to carry out any actions necessary to implement
such policy. The resolution additionally stated that the unusually large number of social services
agencies in the West End and Over-The-Rhine (“OTR”) neighborhoods had the potential to
negatively impact the residential character of the neighborhoods and the commercial uses located
in these areas. The resolution expressed the opinion that the concentration of “social service
agencies within a small geographic area does a disservice to the community by isolating
disadvantaged people, both physically and socially, from mainstream society and the majority of
available employment opportunities” (Resolution No. 41-2008). The resolution stated that the

3
West End and the OTR communities needed to “develop the economic infrastructure and
housing that would enhance the quality of life and create an economically and racially diverse
community that can be sustained over the long term” and declared that “it was the policy of the
City of Cincinnati that social service agencies and programming shall not be concentrated in a
single geographic area and shall not locate in an area that is deemed impacted” (Resolution No.
41-2008).
On September 10, 2008, fourteen (14) social service agencies and individuals filed a complaint
in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in response to Resolution No.
41-2008. This complaint stated it was filed due to the “efforts by a majority of the Council of the
City of Cincinnati to restrict and prohibit social service agencies and the services they provide
from being located in those neighborhoods where the needs for such services is greatest and to
therefore deprive those in need of such services from receiving them, and limit the effective
advocacy by those who would advocate for such services” (Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the
Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 4, S.D. Ohio 2008). The lawsuit stated that
if Resolution No. 41-2008 was implemented, it would deprive those in need of such services and
would prevent the expansion of such services because the “Over-the-Rhine community and the
adjacent community of the West End have some of the highest concentrations of homelessness,
poverty, unemployment, and families and individuals in need of a wide variety of social services
and advocacy in the City of Cincinnati” (Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v.
City of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 13 ¶40, S.D. Ohio 2008). The complaint alleged the
following:
1. The social service providers asserted that Resolution No. 41-2008 constituted a
violation of the substantive due process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States of America because it failed to define what
was meant by "an area that is deemed impacted", "concentration" in a single
geographic area or “social service agency”. Furthermore, the resolution did not
define or limit the types of social service "programming" it was to regulate. Without
definitions of the critical terms contained in the policy adopted by Resolution No. 41-
2008, the orders given to the City Manager were considered to be vague and
overbroad. The directive requires both the City Manger and the targeted charitable
organizations to guess at its meaning, and delegates the authority of the City Council
without meaning and without limitation. The vagueness of the terms would deprive
the social service providers of their substantive due process rights to know what
conduct is expected of them regarding social services and programming in OTR and
any other communities which may fall under Resolution No. 41-2008.
2. The social service providers claimed that Resolution No. 41-2008 violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America found in the
Fourteenth Amendment. The resolution argued that, the "proliferation of [social
service] agencies has the potential to negatively impact the residential character and
the neighborhood serving commercial uses of Over-the-Rhine" (Greater Cincinnati
Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 17 ¶68, S.D.
Ohio 2008) but the City had no study or documentation showing that social service
agencies negatively impact the neighborhood in which they are located. The
resolution also claimed that, "When the city and the region concentrate social services
within a small geographic area, it does a disservice to the community by isolating

4
 disadvantaged people, both physically and socially, from mainstream society and the
majority of available employment opportunities" (Greater Cincinnati Coalition for
the Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 18 ¶70, S.D. Ohio 2008).
Again, the complaint argued that the City had no study or any other documentation to
justify this conclusion. Without any data to support the conclusions, the resolution
adopted by City Council wrongfully impacts the social service agencies located in or
providing services in OTR by denying equal protection of the law as guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States of America and holding some organizations to a
different standard than other agencies performing similar services in other
neighborhoods without any justification for that different treatment.
3. The social service providers asserted that Resolution No. 41-2008 is a violation of the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America because City
Council enacted a resolution designed to limit social service agencies and
programming in specific Cincinnati neighborhoods. Programming of the social
service providers “includes publication of a newspaper, speaking engagements at
local high schools, VFW halls, and before elected leaders regarding various social
issues. The programming of these organizations includes policy-based speech
engaging various audiences: clients, neighbors, elected community leaders, religious
leaders and citizens at-large. An ordinance designed to eliminate the spread of social
service programming in certain neighborhoods is an unlawful, content-based
restriction on speech that was made without a compelling government interest”
(Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati,
1:08CV603, pg 19 ¶79, S.D. Ohio 2008).
4. The social service providers contend that Resolution No. 41-2008 is a violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America because the resolution was prompted by invidious or
discriminatory motives. The complaint stated that City Council members tried to deny
the City Planning Commission its role in developing zoning code text amendments
but failed. The resolution was an attempt to regulate land uses in OTR, without going
through the required process for regulating land use. Several social service providers
and advocacy groups had engaged in political activity to prevent City Council from
adopting zoning text amendments without the City Planning Commission’s
recommendation. “Improvising land use regulations to single out specific
neighborhoods and target organizations involved in protected political activity is a
violation of substantive due process” (Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless,
Et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 20 ¶86, S.D. Ohio 2008).
5. The social service providers contend that the City singled out social services agencies
and other organizations of OTR for discriminatory treatment. “Singling out particular
parties for discriminatory treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment when that mistreatment is motivated by ill will, or the desire
to punish those parties for participation in constitutionally protected activity”
(Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati,
1:08CV603, pg 21 ¶90, S.D. Ohio 2008). Social services agencies and organizations
consistently advocate for homeless and impoverished Cincinnati residents. Any
resolution that seeks to single out and harm this politically unpopular group is not in

5
 the service of a legitimate government purpose, and therefore violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America.
6. The social service providers further contend that the adoption of Resolution No. 41-
2008 constitutes an abuse of corporate powers by the City Council and the
misapplication of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
funds. The plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action as taxpayers to enjoin the abuse of
corporate powers because the public interest would be served by avoiding the
constitutional violations and preventing the City from hindering the implementation
of its HUD Consolidated Community Plan (“Consolidated Plan”). Fund recipients are
not permitted to hinder implementation of the Consolidated Plan by action or willful
inaction. Shelterhouse Volunteer Group, Drop Inn Center and Bethany House
Services, Inc. are granted money to help the City satisfy the federal grant
requirements. Resolution No. 41-2008 would cause the City to violate the
Consolidated Plan and jeopardize the City's access to future funding.
The social service providers requested that Resolution No. 41-2008 be declared unconstitutional,
a violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act protection under the First Amendment, the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, and an abuse of the corporate powers
of the City of Cincinnati. Furthermore, they requested that a preliminary and permanent
injunction prohibit the City from carrying out Resolution No. 41-2008 and that the Court award
the plaintiff’s fees and expenses. This case is pending for a decision on the City’s motion to
dismiss.
On October 8, 2008, City Council adopted the Homeless Services Ordinance No. 347-2008,
which mandated that the Cincinnati/Hamilton County Continuum of Care for the Homeless
develop a new comprehensive plan for helping homeless single individuals move from
homelessness to homes and “ ensure that single homeless men and women will have access to
safe, appropriate shelter facilities that provide the comprehensive services necessary for them to
obtain and maintain housing” (Ordinance No. 347-2008). City Council wanted the plan to result
in a national model that would guarantee the highest standards of care for the homeless and
included case management, medical, mental health, and recovery services.
City Council also directed that the plan recommendations insure that all facilities were “good
neighbors” and that their presence would not result in “any behavior or actions that are disruptive
to businesses and residents” (Ordinance. No. 347-2008). Recommendations for shelter facilities
and service models must be based on nationally recognized best-practice methods. The
Ordinance further stated that if a completed comprehensive plan was not submitted to City
Council by March 31, 2009, City Council would intervene to address the homeless system in a
different manner.
The above background narrative has presented many of the issues discussed by staff and the SSC
during the six months that they met to develop solutions and to draft text amendments to the
Zoning Code. The “Discussion” section of this report will build on these issues and additional
concerns addressed by the SSC.

6
DISCUSSION

The Social Service Committee (“SSC”) raised numerous questions and considered many issues in
the discussions on the regulation of social service agencies and programs. Questions included: (1)
what types of social service programs/agencies have negative secondary impacts on
neighborhoods and what types of social service programs/agencies do not have negative
secondary impacts on neighborhoods? (2) How can these social service agencies be differentiated
and defined? (3) What are the negative impacts on neighborhoods and are they actual or
perceived? (4) What impacts would the regulation of these agencies/programs have on services
for the homeless and needy? (5) What parameters should be used to determine “over
concentration”, “over saturation” or “impacted” neighborhoods? (6) What impacts does the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act have on the City’s ability to regulate social
service programs provided by churches? (7) What legal issues must be considered? (8) What are
the best practices used by social service providers? and (9) What are the best practices used by
municipalities to regulate human service facilities?

SOCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE

The SSC was established as a result of the Planning Commission directing staff, on April 18,
2008, to create zoning text amendments with the social service providers and neighborhood
representatives. A total of twenty-eight meetings were held from June 5, 2008 to October 1, 2008
with the goal of continuing dialogue and developing zoning text amendments that would address
the definitions, location, and concentration of social service agencies in the City. The SSC
consisted of a broad representation of social service providers and concerned citizens. While
many members of the committee came from different, if not opposite, points of view regarding
social services, the committee’s goal was to provide meaningful feedback to City officials.
Everyone understood that it was unlikely that the SSC would reach a consensus regarding a) the
premise that social services are the “causal” factor of negative impacts b) that prohibiting social
services is the appropriate strategy to address “concentration” and c) the appropriate number of
social services agencies that would be allowed in a given geographic area.

Subcommittees.
The SSC was divided into four subcommittees that focused on specific issues. Approximately
forty individuals agreed to work on the committees. A description of each subcommittee and a
list of the participants are detailed below. Levels of participation varied as some participants
attended only one meeting while others were involved in the on-going process. The four
subcommittees were as follows:

1.Providers and Best Practices. The task of this subcommittee was to identify the existing
providers, determine the licensed or certified providers, determine the licensing/certification
criteria, identify best practices of providers and determine the type of model that would work
best for the City.
Members: Chairperson: Jenna Hess,
Lucreta Bowman, Steve Gibbs, Jim Wilson, Teri Nau, Josh Spring, and Kim Hale.

7
2.Impacts and Concentration. This subcommittee’s goal was to identify the impacts of “social
service” uses on neighborhoods, the impacts of regulations on services and providers, and
determine alternatives for addressing the concentration issue.
Members: Chairperson: Ron Fresh,
Anita Page, Idris McKelvy, Patty Hubbard, Mike Morgan, Jenny Edwards, Walter
Rhinehaus, Bill Landeck, Amy Silver, Burr Robinson, John Walter, Tony Ficus,
Sherman Bradley, Margaret Hulbert, Brent Blaine.

3.Best Zoning Practices and Definitions. This subcommittee was to identify the best practices of
municipalities in addressing social service issues and develop definitions for the following terms:
community service facility, social service, transitional housing, special assistance shelter,
dormitory style, non-profit, commercial, permanent supportive housing and any other definitions
determined necessary.
Members: Chairperson: Martha Gitt
Anne McBride,Lucy Katenkamp, Scott Phillips, Alice Skirtz, Bill Haig, Scott
Gehring, Sue Wilke, Georgine Getty, Charlene Ventura, Margo Spence, Mark
Schmieder, Sherman Bradley, Jonathan Avery, Trey Daly.

4.Churches- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The task of this
subcommittee was to research RLUIPA, and determine how the ministries provided by churches
are covered by the Act, and suggest alternatives for addressing churches.
Members: Chairperson: Steve Gibbs
Deborah Mayer, Scott Phillips, Jenny Edwards, Bob Moore, Roger Howell, Missy
Kitchen, and John Hauck.

Identifying the Issues

The issues surrounding the siting of nonprofit social service agencies and programs are
complicated and controversial. Staff sought to find a balance between protecting the rights of the
people who need programs provided by the agencies while protecting the quality of life for the
neighborhoods impacted by such programs. Initially, the SSC wrestled with understanding
exactly the type of social service or nonprofit agencies that the committee was trying to regulate.
Northern Kentucky University produced a research study that identified 9,700 nonprofits in
Greater Cincinnati and its adjacent counties. The committee, for the most part, agreed that
agencies such as the American Red Cross, Community Councils, the Association of Retired
Teachers and other such nonprofit agencies did not pose significant concerns and could be
removed from consideration. It was the “residency-based” support services that were of critical
concern to community residents. In the end, the discussions focused mostly on homeless
shelters, human service multi-use centers, soup kitchens and certain types of supportive housing
such as “wet houses” or the Housing First Model. These terms will be defined in detail later in
this report and in the proposed text amendments.

Identifying the Impacts

The impacts identified depended upon the various views of SSC members. Residents expressed
concerns over the “negative” impacts caused by social service agencies on the host
neighborhoods. Many of the identified impacts were more related to drug abuse and mental
illness, which is more consistent with the services provided for the homeless although not

8
necessarily across the board. The providers explained that some concerns had more to do with
issues of poverty and its subsets, such as homelessness, rather than social services agencies or
programs. They further discussed the distinction between behaviors, such as panhandling or
public urination, and homelessness which is an economic state. The committee chose to focus on
how the presence of poverty together with social services may impact the “quality of life” of a
community. The resident representatives identified the impacts to be:
• Public Intoxication
• Violence
• Profanity
• Panhandling
• Solicitation
• Proliferation of litter
• Evidence of public urination
• Large numbers of individuals loitering
• Open containers of alcohol
• Suspicious behavior/drug usage or sales
• Erratic behaviors by clients
• Quality of life- increased crime and high frequency of Part 1 and Part 2 crimes.
• Safety
• Frequent police and other emergency calls diverting limited emergency response
resources from the balance of the community.
• Poorly maintained properties
• Negative perception of certain neighborhoods
• Loss of neighborhood desirability based on perception
• Potential decrease in property values
• Disincentive to business investment
• Deterrent to owner occupancy (flight)
• Regional magnet effect for “outsiders” and homeless

One of the many issues identified by the residents was the loss of property value due to the
concentration of social service agencies. Residents felt that an over concentration of agencies and
programs impeded the revitalization of neighborhoods and lowered the quality of life for the host
communities. However, few studies have been done on social service facilities that backup this
claim. Many studies show that affordable housing and group homes do not have a negative effect
on property values. Some studies even show that the property values increase. It should be noted
that many of the studies on this topic examine new affordable housing units built in blighted
neighborhoods. One can reasonably argue that any new development in a blighted neighborhood
would have a neutral or positive effect on property values. Also many of the studies dealt
specifically with group homes for the developmentally disabled and affordable housing, not the
homeless shelters, multi-use centers, wet/damp houses, or soup kitchens that the SSC was
working to regulate.

On the other hand, a recent article in the Pulse newspaper entitled “The homeless, panhandling
and redevelopment; Where Cincinnati’s poorest fit in the new Downtown,” detailed the incidents

9
that the Fourth Street business owners are experiencing related to homeless and panhandling.
One owner stated that on most mornings he had to clean his storefront from the smell of urine.
According to Andy Freeze, from the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, there are
8,300 living on the streets in Cincinnati and it is not declining (Pipoly, 2008).

Cincinnati Police Department statistics, for the period from January 1, 2008 to August 12, 2008,
indicate there were more than 2,000 total arrests of individuals who gave an OTR address as
their place of residence. More than 1,200 of those arrests were of individuals who gave 217 W.
12th Street (the Drop-Inn Center) as their place of residence. Approximately two-thirds of these
1,200 arrests occurred within a 1/2 mile radius of the Drop Inn Center. The providers did not
agree with these statistics and noted that the numbers were disputed because many of the
individuals who gave the Drop Inn Center as their address had never stayed there. While violent
crime, generally related to illegal drug activity, is often present in communities with high
concentrations of poverty and social services, the committee agreed that the presence of social
services does not directly correlate to such violent criminal activity.

The providers were adamant that not all of the social service agencies had negative impacts on
the host neighborhoods. Communities realize many positive impacts as a result of having needed
programs and services in the community. The Issues and Concentration Subcommittee addressed
the positive impacts of (residential/ treatment centers) social services on neighborhoods. This
sub-committee found the following:

• Social services provide critical resources that clients need in order to improve their socio-
economic circumstances. The provision of critical services allow for “life change” for
clients versus no resources at all in high poverty neighborhoods.

• Studies have shown that “new” residential properties for those in need, if designed well
and maintained, can increase property values in the immediate neighborhood (studies
included residential treatment, group home models and supportive housing).

• Studies have shown that crime levels are lower next to licensed treatment facilities than
elsewhere in the same area.

• There is no evidence that social service recipients in general create negative impacts and
any information presented by members of the committee was speculation.

• Many of the identified negative issues have a multitude of contributors and cannot be
isolated to social services alone.

There was significant disagreement among committee members on negative impacts. Some
members felt that social services did not have a direct correlation to negative community impacts
and on the contrary, research highlights social services’ positive impact on adjacent communities
such as increase in property values and decrease in crime. Research also points to “poverty” as
the preeminent correlating factor to negative impacts including violent crime and drug related
activity.

10
Defining “Concentration”
The Issues and Concentration Subcommittee reported that “impacted” can be defined by a high
concentration of social services that significantly contributes to the deterioration of the quality of
life in a community and the introduction of more social services into the community would cause
further deterioration. A second definition by the committee stated, “a neighborhood becomes
“impacted” when the percentage of residents living in poverty is over the rate of 30-40% (as
identified by national models). Social Services are present as a result of the need within the
communities.” Providers felt strongly that “impacted” communities should not be defined by the
presence of social services. Rather, social services reflect the percentage of low-income
recipients the agencies serve.

The term “concentration” implies that at some point, the number of agencies reflecting the
percentage of poverty in a given community will overwhelm the population. When that “tipping
point” or “carrying capacity” is reached, the economic demographics begin to deteriorate and
ultimately a struggling community emerges. Many of the studies examined did not consider
concentration when examining property values. In 2002, George C Galster, Professor of Urban
Affairs at Wayne State University, prepared a report for the National Association of Realtors.
This report reviewed and critiqued existing neighborhood impact literature. The report concluded,
“that communities could absorb a certain number of developments with neutral or even positive
effects. However, once the number of facilities passed a critical threshold, negative effects were
seen.” (STEPPS 2006) In the report, Galster stated that, “assisted housing of various types had
positive or insignificant effects on residential property values nearby in higher-valued, less
vulnerable neighborhoods, unless it exceeded thresholds of spatial concentration or facility scale
[and] evinced more modest prospects for positive property value impacts in lower value, more
vulnerable neighborhoods, and strength of frequently negative impacts was directly related to the
concentration of sites and scale of the facilities” (STEPPS 2006). Accordingly, facilities that are
too large or the existence of too many facilities in an area can negatively impact property values
in a given neighborhood. The study concluded that 1) low-income neighborhoods are more
vulnerable and more likely to experience negative effects and are less likely to improve and 2)
negative effects can be seen once the concentration of facilities and the size of facilities exceeds a
certain threshold or carrying capacity. Therefore, the over concentration of social services may
lead to fewer positive impacts for both residents and those seeking social service programs, which
is the opposite of the positive impacts expected from efficiencies of scale when like services are
provided in close proximity.

The Drop-Inn Center (“DIC”) provided Vesta data on the zipcode of last permanent residence for
their clients over an unspecified time period. This data is routinely requested from the DIC
clients during an interview on their third day at the shelter. A total of 2,623 clients responded,
with the following summarized results:
• 1,431 individuals did not give a zipcode when asked
• 572 individuals reported Hamilton County (other than OTR)
• 321 individuals reported the OTR area (45202). This zipcode also includes Downtown, Mt.
Adams and Pendleton.
• 40 individuals reported SW Ohio (other than Hamilton County)
• 29 individuals reported Central Ohio
• 41 individuals reported Northern Ohio

11
• 14 individuals reported Indiana
• 68 individuals reported Kentucky
• 107 individuals reported 21 other states

An unknown percentage of the 321 clients from the 45202 zipcode transferred from other social
service facilities or county facilities within the 45202 zipcode. No explanation was given by DIC
as to why 1,431 clients gave no response for the zipcode of their last permanent residence. Based
on this data, it appears that DIC captures a much wider, regional clientele than the local
population.

The degree of concentration is an important factor to be weighed against the considerations of

need, cost and service efficiency. The difficulty lies in defining a quantitative threshold of over
concentration and providing an objective information base to assess the reality of community
claims of saturation. The Issues and Concentration subcommittee discussed at length how the
City could determine whether a neighborhood was overly concentrated with social service uses.
They addressed the definition of “concentration” and/or “impacted” neighborhood and
recommended the following:

• The number of people being served should be considered in relation to the population
in that geographic area along with the percentage of individuals coming from within
the community vs. those migrating from other communities.

• The concentration of public housing and percentage of low socio-economic status

within an area should be considered.

• Zoning regulations need to address the number of and distance between social
services for duplication and need.

• Recognize the number of clients being drawn from other communities/region/states

for services. The number of people being served by social service providers located in
the host community relative to the population of the host community must be
considered and the number of individuals being served in a community should not be
grossly disproportionate to the number of residents permanently living in the
community.

• The proximity of the host community to abutting communities that may have a high
concentration of social services

• The number of and distance between social services and whether services are being
duplicated

• The concentration of public/shelter housing and percentage of low socio-economic

status within an area (40% threshold).

12
Best Practices of Social Service Providers

The Housing First Model

The Housing First Model of supportive housing was identified as a best practice of providers.
This housing model has gained momentum in recent years as a viable alternative to the standard
care for persons who are homeless with serious mental illness and/or alcohol and substance
addictions. The Housing First Model offers immediate permanent housing without requiring
treatment compliance or abstinence. Services are available for these individuals but they are not
required to use them. The traditional standard programs require “treatment first” or
detoxification and sobriety before independent housing will be provided. Studies of the treatment
first programs have shown that these programs have modest results in achieving housing stability
(Padgett 2006). It is estimated that “approximately 50% to 70% of persons who are homeless
have mental illness and abuse substances issues. These estimates are widely considered
underreports because of denial, distrust, and fear of consequences of divulging illegal
behaviors”. (Padgett 2006) Stable housing is ranked as the first and highest priority in the
Housing First philosophy. These programs separate housing from treatment, considering
treatment as being voluntary and housing being a fundamental need and human right. Housing
First programs accept the most problematic among persons who are homeless with mental illness
and alcohol and substance abuse issues.

In 1996, a four-year study was conducted in the New York City area that compared the Housing
First Model with the “treatment first” programs. This New York Housing Study (“NYHS”)
determined that “a person’s mental health is not related to his or her ability to obtain or maintain
independent housing”. (Padgett 2006) The study also concluded that while these individuals used
substance abuse treatment programs infrequently, the use of substances by these persons did not
increase. The control group had a higher use of substance abuse programs but did not show
lower rates of drug or alcohol use. Program philosophies favoring choice over restrictions, and
empowerment over compliance, have been shown to be both effective and humane.

There is a presumption that in “treatment first” facilities, such as halfway houses for alcohol and
substance addiction, the residents are trying to recover and are free from drugs and/or alcohol.
The Housing First Model reaches out to the most marginalized individuals and does not require
treatment compliance or abstinence. Base on SSC discussions, a form of the Housing First
Model of housing is occurring within in the City. Homeless individuals are being housed in
private apartment units that are integrated in the neighborhood and supported by caseworkers.
The City does not yet have Housing First facility with many individuals at one location, such as
the 25-unit facility currently proposed on Odeon Street in Over-The-Rhine. Depending on how
such facilities are operated, housing 25 homeless individuals with mental health and substance
abuse issues in one facility may have far greater impacts on a neighborhood than dispersed units.
Despite the success of this program in other jurisdictions, this program has the potential to cause
concerns for residential neighborhoods.

One-Stop Service Locations

Another best practice of social service agencies is providing integrated services at one location.
The City developed a one-stop Business Development and Permit Center for the review and
issuance of building permits in an effort to provide more efficient and effective customer service.

13
Likewise, the social service profession has found that integrated service facilities are more
effective in helping their clients. Many successful examples exist throughout the United States.
The Haven For Hope campus centralizes a multitude of services for the homeless 1.5 miles west
of downtown on a 22-acre site in San Antonio, Texas. The purpose of this facility is to provide a
comprehensive process from beginning to end that allows for the transformation of a person
coming off the streets. The focus is to educate the homeless. The facility has 24-hour security
provided by the San Antonio Police Department. A presentation to the San Antonio City Council
stated that one of the criteria for selection of the site was to minimize the impact on residential
neighborhoods. Further, operation of Haven For Hope would save significant taxpayer dollars by
minimizing the misuse of emergency services and reducing the use of costly public services
(Campa, 2007). Additionally, a focus of the facility is to keep the homeless off the streets and out
of the neighborhoods by providing interior courtyards and enforcing the City’s Quality of Life
Ordinances. Phoenix, Arizona also opened an integrated facility in 2005. As a result, crime went
down 19.5% from 2005 to 2006 and property values increased an average of 21% from 2006 to
2007. San Diego, California also opened an integrated facility and the crime went down 1.6%
from 2005-2006 and has remained stable. In Miami, Florida the homeless population went from
8500 to 1200 after a consolidated facility was opened (Campa, 2007).

The Social Service Committee Findings and Recommendations

One of the SSC subcommittees provided a final written report, one committee provided
recommendations for zoning text amendments and two subcommittees provided a substantial
amount of information but no final report. The Impacts and Concentration subcommittee actually
provided two versions of their final report. The neighborhood members of the Impacts and
Concentration subcommittee prepared one report and the provider members of this subcommittee
prepared the other. Both are attached in the Appendices. The zoning text amendments proposed
by the Best Zoning Practices and Definitions subcommittee are before the Planning Commission
for consideration. Staff continued research after the final meeting of the SSC was held in
October. Changes were made to the text amendments based on additional research, the public
staff conference held on November 12, 2008 and staff discussions.

The Issues and Concentration subcommittee recommended six (6) specific findings that relate
directly to the development of the zoning text amendments:

1. This subcommittee reported that the agencies providing housing, such as emergency
shelter or supportive housing, should be regulated differently than agencies providing
services such as counseling or job training. The committee also stated that any
regulations needed to differentiate between “homeless” and “chronically homeless”.
These definitions are discussed in detail later in this report.

2. Special zoning regulations should be applied to impacted neighborhoods:

• If a neighborhood is “impacted”, any new services to be added must demonstrate that
the services are needed and will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
• There should be regulations for size, scale and distance separations.

14
 • The City must develop strategies that target deconcentration and enforce “fair share”
housing policies while preparing for “fierce” criticism and reactions from receiving
communities.
• The City should provide incentives that support social services within new receiving
communities.

3. The social service providers should take action to deconcentate neighborhoods:

• Service center hubs are a recognized trend in best practices
• Scale of service center hubs must be taken into consideration
• Social services must be willing to integrate and /or consolidate
services/partnerships
• The Housing First Model is an alternative to consider for decreasing the number
of homeless men and women on the street.
• “Good Neighbor” laws or regulations can reduce negative quality of life impact.
• At some point, either by law or regulation, social service providers must be held
responsible for the behavior of the clients that they attract to a neighborhood.
Consider the number of client arrests as a criteria in achieving “Good Neighbor”
status.

4. Incorporate zoning regulations that would prevent a neighborhood from becoming

“impacted”:
• Distance separation for “like” social services.
• Zoning that promotes better integration and consolidation of social services agencies.
• Facilities should be compatible in size and scale relative to the community in which
they are sited.
• Include community involvement in the siting process for new facilities.
Existing social service providers stated concerns that they may be ‘locked’ into
current neighborhoods if new zoning regulations makes it more difficult to de-
concentrate by relocating to other neighborhoods. The result may be that
providers find it easier to remain in current concentrated locations as a
“nonconforming use.” The providers also stated that additional regulations would
increases costs, and would put social services through a mire of red tape because
less concentrated areas would be likely to resist the re-location of social service
facilities to their neighborhoods.

5. The social service providers should assist in preventing a neighborhood from becoming
“impacted” by:
• Providing a needs analysis (is the service needed compared to services provided)
for new facilities.
• Providing better mobility from service provider to service provider to prevent
loitering, etc.
• Providing better day services by creating appropriate and attractive places inside
and out for clients during the day (places to sit, shaded areas, access to
restrooms).
• Better integration of services (consolidation of services)
• Providing Good Neighbor Agreements

15
 • Develop strategies that effectively address community concerns such as litter,
loitering, and safety.

6. City government can help promote changes needed to reduce or eliminate the effects of
“concentration” of social services in any neighborhood by:
• Funding agencies with CDBG dollars to support and encourage deconcentration
of services to areas where there is high poverty concentration and low support
services.
• Encouraging mixed-income distribution of housing and services
• Creating funding streams for Housing First initiatives
• Funding efforts towards consolidation and integration of services
• Supporting those social service agencies that follow best practices and are “good
neighbors”: identify and track arrests to determine any connection to specific
social services clients and provide reports to those service providers and
interested parties
• City Government could establish a procedure whereby a community council
petitions City Council to designate their community as “impacted.” All
stakeholders in that community, including social services, would be given the
opportunity to present their arguments for or against the impaction case, based on
(but not limited to) criteria relating to concentration: population, median
household incomes, and percentage of public housing could also be relevant
factors to be considered. Therefore, introduction of any new social service
providers into an “impacted” community would need to justify its relevance based
on the need in the community and if similar services are currently present.
• City government would recognize outside strategies and “best practice models”
directed towards critical issues facing people in poverty. The City should develop
strategies concerning chronic homelessness. e.g. Prospects Courtyard in San
Antonio, a localized area for homeless men and women that is safe, engaging, and
dignified.

OTHER CONCERNS

Homelessness
Federal law defines homelessness as one who “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence…and has a primary night residence that is: (a) supervised publicly or privately
operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations…(b) an institution that
provides temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or (c) a public or
private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for
human beings” (APA Policy Guide 2003). Additionally, “chronically homeless” are individuals
that typically have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues in addition to extreme poverty
and experience long-term homelessness. The proposed zoning text amendments provide
definitions for “homeless” and “chronically homeless”.

16
Repeatedly, the social service providers pointed out that the identified negative behaviors and
impacts were more related to drug abuse and mental illness, which is more consistent with
services provided to the homeless. While it has been well documented that many homeless
individuals do have mental illness and substance abuse issues, the economic crisis that the
United States is facing, rising housing costs and cut backs in federal programs have meant that
agencies are now serving a very different population than they did 30 years ago and the need for
services is on the rise. Nearly 61 percent of local and state homeless coalitions have indicated
that they are experiencing a rise in homelessness since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007
(Masters, 2008). The economic turmoil and record foreclosure rate has turned a growing number
of lower and middle-income Americans out of their homes and into the street. Poverty is hitting
the middle class. The American Association of Retired People (“AARP”) recently reported that
many of today’s homeless are over 50 years of age because “the programs that inoculated older
people against homelessness are not keeping up” (Fleck, 2008). Families with children are one
of the fastest growing segments of the homeless population estimated to be at approximately 34-
38 percent (APA Policy Guide, 2003). The causes of homelessness are complex but can be
traced to several principal reasons:

Employment: The number of jobs for lower-level workers is decreasing.

Underemployment does not allow people to afford decent housing. The American
Planning Association’s Policy Guide states that “in no state does a full-time minimum-
wage job enable most families to pay for a moderately priced two-bedroom apartment.”
The loss of a job and unemployment forces individuals to seek emergency and
transitional housing.

Housing Costs: Escalating housing costs have outstripped personal income growth.
Coupled with the accelerated loss of an affordable housing stock, and decreasing welfare
benefits and rental assistance, more people are force to choose between food, shelter and
other medical needs.

Health Care Costs: A serious illness or disability can lead to loss of employment and
eventually loss of a place to live.

Domestic Violence: “Forty-six percent of the cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors reported domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness” (APA Policy
Guide, 2003).

Mental Illness and Substance Abuse: A very high percentage of all homeless adults
suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addictions, mental illness or some combination of
the three. As a result of deinstitutionalization, large numbers of mentally ill persons are
now in the community. The State of Ohio had an effective deinstitutionalization rate of
94.8% between 1955 and 1994 (Frontline, 2005). Deinstitutionalization can be defined as
the replacement of long-stay psychiatric hospitals with smaller, less isolated community-
based alternatives for the care of mentally ill people (Lamb and Bachrach 2001) The
expectation of deinstitutionalization was that community mental health services would
lead to a fuller integration into the community with some degree of “normalization” that

17
 would result in a richer quality of life for those with mental disabilities. Three concepts
were behind the rationale for deinstitutionalization: (1) the mentally ill would live better
lives than they were under the miserable conditions in the state hospitals, (2) community-
based care would be more therapeutic than hospital-based care and (3) community-based
care would be more cost-effective than hospital-based care. It became apparent that
outside of hospitals it is difficult to prescribe and monitor the medications that help these
individuals function in the community (Moynihan 1999). Studies indicate that these
expectations have not been achieved and the concentration of services in the community
prevents the legitimate integration of these individuals into the neighborhood.

Between 50 and 60 percent of those who were deinstitutionalized were diagnosed with
schizophrenia, another 10 to 15 percent were diagnosed with manic-depressive illness
and severe depression, and 10 to 15 percent were diagnosed with epilepsy, strokes,
Alzheimer’s disease and brain damage from trauma. (Frontline 2005) The easy access to
alcohol and other chemical substances has led to substance abuse disorders in substantial
numbers of these individuals who medicate themselves with street drugs that exacerbate
symptoms and interfere with any progress that might have been possible. (Lamb and
Bachrach 2001) “The fact that most deinstitutionalized people suffer from various forms
of brain dysfunction was not as well understood when the policy of deinstitutionalization
got underway”. (Frontline, 2005) Consequently, a new generation of uninstitutionalized
persons with severe mental illnesses are homeless and are creating significant challenges
to service providers and communities. (Lamb and Bachrach, 2001) The concept for
deinstitutionalization was to provide more humane care for mentally ill individuals in the
least restrictive setting that would allow freedom, self-determination and dignity. It can
hardly be said that living on the streets, in a shelter, or jail cell provides any amount of
self-determination or dignity. It is generally accepted that deinstitutionalization has not
worked because the only change has been to switch the setting from hospitals to jails or
high poverty neighborhoods.

The Hamilton County jails are clogged with homeless individuals. (Ausman, 2007)
Between August 28, 2006 and November 2, 2006 an average of 5.68% of the jail
population was homeless. (Ausman, 2007) Homeless individuals are typically arrested for
minor non-violent misdemeanors and fourth degree misdemeanors, such as open flask
charges, public indecency due to public urination, sitting on the sidewalk, spitting in a
public space, dumpster diving (upsetting public and private receptacles), littering charges,
loitering charges, solicitation charges, trespassing charges, and disorderly conduct
charges (Ausman 2007).

The Homeless Section of the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan was developed for both the City of
Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Ohio as part of the Continuum of Care for the Homeless
(“CoC”) program of the combined jurisdictions. The Point-in-Time count, taken May 21, 2003,
documented 1,259 persons homeless on the streets, in emergency shelters and transitional
housing for the homeless facilities.

18
 Individuals Families
Inventory as of 7-20-04
Beds % Beds %
Emergency Shelter 431 78% 287 95%
Transitional Housing 202 45% 238 60%
Permanent Supportive Housing 734 28% 650 33%

The Consolidated Plan reports that on March 18, 2003, all persons residing in the shelters for
single individuals (i.e. The Drop Inn Center, City Gospel Mission, Hamilton County’s Mount
Airy Shelter, and St. Francis/St. Joseph Catholic Worker House) were asked to participate in
“ending chronic homelessness” by providing some basic information to surveyors. Each
individual was asked the following questions: 1) A unique identifier so that no duplication in
counting occurred. 2) Have you been homeless for longer than a year? 3) Have you been
homeless four times in the past three years? 4) Do you have a problem with substance abuse? 5)
Do you have a mental health problem? 6) Are you a veteran? 7) How old are you? The findings
are summarized below:

Identifying Identifying
Identifying Identifying
as as CH Identifying Average
Findings:Shelter Sheltered Chronically as CH
having a
both as CH
as a CH Age of
Site Totals Substance SA and MH
Homeless MH Veteran CH
Abuser issues
(CH) problem
City Gospel 37 22 7 4 4 2 42
Drop Inn 215 123 74 40 25 29 45
Mt. Airy 58 18 14 11 8 6 41

Catholic Worker 15 11 6 2 0 1 38
TOTAL 325 174 101 57 37 38 41.5
Percentage 54% 58% of CH 33%of CH 21% of CH 22% of CH

March 18, 2003 was one of the first balmy nights of spring, and many of the persons who were
in the men’s (single) shelters on a given night chose to stay outside, thus presenting a count that
was lower than the 416 sheltered count of gaps analysis. However, though the total number of
homeless persons was less than average, the proportionate number of persons self-identifying as
substance abusers was higher than the gaps analysis while the number of persons with mental
illness, dual-disabilities, and veterans status was as expected. (Cincinnati, 2005-2009
Consolidated Plan. Vol. II, Needs and Strategies.)

The street count on May 21, 2003, found 196 individuals homeless and unsheltered, many
having developed sophisticated “camps”, thus leading one to believe that they would also meet
the definition of chronic homelessness. The CoC believes the survey-established benchmarks on
chronically homeless as 54% of homeless individuals on any given night. Further benchmarks
have now established that 58% of the chronically homeless have substance abuse issues; 33%
have mental health problems; and 21% may be dual diagnosed with substance abuse and mental
health issues. CoC providers have also learned that housing without meaningful and appropriate

19
supportive services designed to stabilize, manage the crisis, and provide on-going housing and
disability supports will not create a solution.

HUD Table 1A: Homeless and Special Needs Populations

Continuum of Care: Housing Gaps Analysis Chart
Current Under Unmet
Inventory in Development in Need/Gap
2004 2004
Individuals
Emergency Shelter 431 0 0
Beds Transitional Housing 202 0 15
Permanent Supportive Housing 650 0 342
Total 1,283 0 357
Persons in Families with Children
Emergency Shelter 287 0 0
Beds Transitional Housing 238 20 5
Permanent Supportive Housing 734 0 140
Total 1,259 20 145

The Hamilton County Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services (“ADAS”) board is the major
funding agency for persons with substance abuse problems. The ADAS board funds agencies with
a combined capacity of 445 beds. While these beds do not meet the HUD definition of transitional
housing for the homeless, they do represent transitional housing for people who require additional
support after crisis treatment and preparing for independent, sober living.

The City has a Human Services Policy that calls for 1.5% of the total City budget to be allocated
to addressing poverty related issues. In recent years, the City has not been able to meet the full
1.5% funding because of budget constraints. However, in 2008 the budgeted amount for human
services from the general fund was approximately $2,523,000 or 0.7% of the General Fund. In
2007 the budgeted amount was $2,600,000 and in 2006 the budgeted amount was $2,471,000.
The recommended budget for 2009 is $3,315,930. Other funding sources include:
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides the Emergency Shelter
Grant (ESG),
• The Continuum of Care (CoC) grant sources, such as the Supportive Housing Program
(SHP), Shelter Plus Care (SPC), and Section 8-SRO Moderate Rehabilitation for the
Homeless,
• HOME grant funds,
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• Funding is also provided by other state, local and private resources.

20
Legal Challenges
The SSC examined the Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Person Act (RLUIPA) and the
Fair Housing Act (FHA) to determine the impact of federal legislation on the siting of social
service facilities.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) has had a major impact
on the ability of local governments to regulate the ministries of churches. Federal RLUIPA of
2000, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc2 states, in pertinent part: “No government shall impose or implement a
land use regulation in a manner that shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of
a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that
the imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution (A) is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.” Congress in RLUIPA defined some of the key terms but left
others to the courts. Such terms as “ compelling governmental interest”, “substantial burden” and
“least restrictive means” are unclear and court decisions have not provided any clear direction.
Other terms have been defined. “Religious exercise” is defined by RLUIPA as “any exercise of
religion, whether or not compelled by or central to, a system of religious belief.” Religious
exercise also includes “the use, building or conversion of real property for the purpose of
religious exercise”. The broad definition of religious exercise may include a religious school,
daycare, gym, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, soup kitchen or virtually any land use
operated by a religious organization. The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble for
religious purposes but land use regulations may be used to discriminate against religious
assemblies. For example, prohibiting religious assemblies in zoning districts where theaters,
meeting or banquet halls and other places where groups of people assemble for secular purposes
would discriminate against religious assembly. “RLUIPA prohibits the government from treating
a religious assembly or institution on “less than equal terms” than a non-religious assembly;
discriminating against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion; completely excluding
religious assemblies in a jurisdiction; or placing unreasonable limits on the religious assemblies,
institutions or structures within a jurisdiction.” (Williams and Souchuns, 2003)

The critical provision of RLUIPA is its prohibition on imposing a “substantial burden” and
treating a religious organization on less than equal terms. (Williams and Souchuns, 2003) It
appears that as long as a religious organization is subjected to the same generally applicable
zoning regulations as a nonsecular organization, local action will not be invalidated.

Some churches and synagogues provide shelter for the homeless as part of their mission and may
claim that these activities are protected as a First Amendment expression of their faith and
therefore are constitutionally exempt from zoning regulations. This may be accurate depending on
the circumstances of the case and which court hears the case. State and federal courts have not
dealt with these claims consistently. A municipality must be able to show that any regulation that
infringes on religious expression serves a compelling public purpose that outweighs concerns
about religious expression. (Schwaab, 2000)

The Fair Housing Act

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“Fair Housing Act”) as amended prohibits
discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well

21
as other entities such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners
insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons
because of race or color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. The Fair
Housing Act (“the Act”) was amended in 1988 to add protections for persons with disabilities and
families with children. Although the Act does not pre-empt local zoning laws, there has been
substantial litigation concerning the Act’s effect on the ability of local governments to regulate
group living arrangements, particularly for persons with disabilities. The act prohibits local
governments from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that
exclude or otherwise discriminate against protected individuals with disabilities.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap, which has the same legal
meaning as the term disability. Persons with disabilities are individuals with mental or physical
impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The term mental or
physical impairment may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility
impairment, HIV infection, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue,
learning disability head injury and mental illness. The disability discrimination provisions of the
Fair Housing Act do not protect persons who currently use illegal drugs, persons who have been
convicted of manufacture or sale of illegal drugs, sex offenders, juvenile offenders or persons
with or without disabilities that present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. The
Act does protect people who are recovering from substance abuse. It does not protect persons
who are currently engaging in the current illegal use of controlled substances. Determining
whether someone poses a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis and cannot be
made on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability. The Act does not
allow for exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or stereotype about a disability
or persons with disabilities in general. A determination that an individual poses a direct threat
must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence such as
current conduct or a recent history of overt acts. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to utilize land use policies or actions that treat groups of
persons with disabilities less favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example would
be an ordinance that prohibits housing for persons with a mental illness from locating in a
particular area while other groups of unrelated individuals are allowed to live together in that
area. The Act also makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use
and zoning policies and procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to afford
persons or groups of persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. The
Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and most
courts that have addressed the issue of distance separation agree that density restrictions are
generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. However, “if a neighborhood came to be
largely composed of group homes or facilities, that could adversely affect individuals with
disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons with disabilities
into the community”. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999) “ A consideration of over-concentration
could be considered in this context”. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999)

22
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING AND BUILDINGS STUDIES

Findings of the City of Cincinnati Appraiser Survey

The real and perceived impact of social service agencies on individual neighborhoods has been a
source of considerable controversy in the City of Cincinnati for many years. Independent
research by the Planning staff was conducted to identify and document the impacts of social
service facilities on neighborhoods.

In October 2008, City staff sent a survey to 153 real property appraisers in an effort to determine
if social service facilities and programs impacted property values. The survey asked if the
existence of certain types of nonprofit charitable services such as homeless shelters, soup
kitchens, halfway houses or social/human service agencies, regardless of the condition of the
property in which those uses were operated, ever resulted in the appraiser placing a lower
valuation on a property. Survey experts may argue that the survey was less than scientific or that
the return rate was not adequate. However, the purpose of the survey was to obtain the objective
opinions of experts in property valuation on this issue. A copy of the survey is attached in
Appendix 3. The results are as follows:
Results
153 Surveys sent out
1 Survey returned as undeliverable
20 or 13% Surveys returned
8* or 40% Stated no impact on valuation
12 or 60% Stated yes to impact on valuation
NO impact on valuation responses
1 Stated that they did not do Residential valuations.
2 Stated that they did not do Business valuations.

YES impacts on valuation responses

11 Stated that they would place a lower valuation on residential properties.
1 Stated that it “depends” on whether they would place a lower valuation on residential
properties.
4 Stated that both residential and business properties were impacted.
3 Stated that business properties were not impacted but residential properties would be
impacted.
0 Stated that business properties would be impacted but residential properties would not be
impacted.
5 Stated that they only appraise residential properties.
0 Stated that they only appraise business properties.

* One appraiser said “no” to any impacts on valuation for either business or residential properties
but left a telephone number to discuss the issue. Upon discussion, it was determined that the
appraiser did feel that certain human service facilities would negatively impact residential

23
property values. This response was left as a “no impact” response. Another appraiser responded
“no” to any impact on residential valuation but stated that he/she would “mention” the existence
of any human service facilities in the vicinity.

Distance from Human Service Facilities that Impact Property Valuation.

Business Properties
2 Stated that they would consider uses in the same block.
0 Stated that they would consider a distance greater than 1,500 feet if the facility fronted on the
same street as the property being appraised.
3 Stated that they would consider a distance greater than 1,500 feet for certain types of
nonprofit, charitable services.

Residential Properties
0 Stated 500 feet
1 Stated 1,000 feet
2 Stated 1,500 feet
2 Stated same block
1 Stated they would consider a distance greater that 1500 feet if the facility fronted on the
same street as the property being appraised.
4 Stated they would consider a distance greater than 1500 feet for certain types of
nonprofit, charitable services.
1 Stated that human service facilities would only impact the property valuation if it were
located directly across the street from the property being appraised.
1 Stated that human service facilities would only impact the property valuation if a view
were affected.
1 Stated that human service facilities would only impact the property valuation if traffic
patterns affected the property being appraised.

Types of Uses Adversely Affecting Property Valuation

The survey provided a list of various types of uses. The appraisers were asked to circle the uses
that they felt would impact the value of a property. They were then to rank each of the circles
uses from highest impacts to lowest impacts. The ranking of the uses from the highest impact to
the lowest was difficult to objectively evaluate because not all of the appraisers ranked the uses
consistently. Some appeared to be ranked in the reverse order from the directions given on the
survey. Therefore, the following results are based only on the number of times a particular use
was circled as having an adverse affect on the value of a property.

24
Business Properties
No. Indicating Uses
Impact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1 Bowling alleys, offices, medical clinics, pawn shops, convenient store with gas pumps,
daycare centers and thrift stores.

2-4 Salvage yards, soup kitchens, supportive housing for persons actively using alcohol or
drugs, food banks, bars, bars with live entertainment, adult bookstores, halfway houses
for recovery from alcohol.

5-6 Halfway houses for recovery from drug use, sexually oriented businesses, and homeless
shelters.

7+ Halfway house for persons released from prison.

Based on the above responses, bowling alleys, offices, medical centers, pawnshops, and daycare
centers have little or no impact on the value of business property. Salvage yards, soup kitchens,
supportive housing for persons actively using alcohol or drugs, food banks, bars, bars with live
entertainment, adult bookstores, and halfway houses for recovery from alcohol were seen as
having some impacts on the value of business property. Halfway houses for recovery from drug
use, sexually oriented businesses, and homeless shelters were more often seen as having impacts
on the value of business properties and halfway house for persons released from prison were
seen as having the most impact on the value of business properties. Also comments provided on
the surveys indicated that noise, traffic and signage impacted property values. Comments also
indicated that uses that blend into the neighborhood do not impact property values.
Residential Properties
No. Indicating Uses
Impact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1

2-4 Daycare centers

5-6 Thrift stores, bowling alley, medical clinics, and office uses.

7+ Sexually oriented businesses, supportive housing for persons actively using alcohol or
drugs, bars, bars with live entertainment, convenient stores with gas pumps, food banks,
halfway house for persons released from prison, halfway houses for recovery from
alcohol, halfway houses for recovery from drug use, homeless shelters, pawn shop,
salvage yards, soup kitchens and adult bookstores.

Based on the responses for services or businesses adversely affecting the value of a residential
property, all of the listed services or businesses were seen as potentially impacting residential

25
values. Daycare centers were considered to have the least potential to negatively impact
residential property values. Thrift stores, bowling alley, medical clinics, and office uses were
seen as having more potential to affect property values. Sexually oriented businesses, supportive
housing for persons actively using alcohol or drugs, bars, bars with live entertainment,
convenience stores with gas pumps, food banks, halfway house for persons released from prison,
halfway houses for recovery from alcohol, halfway houses for recovery from drug use, homeless
shelters, pawn shop, salvage yards, soup kitchens and adult bookstores were more often seen as
having the potential to adversely affect property values. Figure 1 shows the number of appraiser
“yes” responses for each use category.

26
FIGURE 1

27
Facility Site Assessment Findings
To document the impacts identified at the SSC meetings, City Staff completed site assessments.
The Vesta list of 9,700 non-profit agencies was narrowed down to 1824 non-profit agencies
within the City boundaries. The list was further refined to identify facilities that best fit the
definitions of the social service facilities being developed by the SSC. These facilities were
shelters and supportive housing identified as priority 4 and other facilities such as soup kitchens
and social service agencies identified as priority 3. The list resulted in 404 agencies. Staff further
reduced the list to 75 sample facilities for the site assessments. Ten (10) staff members from
various city departments were asked to complete site assessments on these facilities. Objectivity
was important in assessing the facilities. Therefore, staff included planners from the Department
of City Planning and Buildings, Housing staff and Business Development staff from the
Department of Community Development, staff from the Department of Transportation and
Engineering, staff from the City Managers office and staff from the Cincinnati Police
Department. The instructions directed the evaluators to assess as many facilities as they could
but at minimum each evaluator was to evaluate 30 facilities. Further, the evaluators were asked
to complete the assessments at different times of the day, including evenings, weekends, and
nighttime hours. The Police Department complete assessments for all of the facilities listed in
their districts. Therefore, all facilities were evaluated by the Police Department while City staff
randomly evaluated the 75 non-profit facilities. A total of 403 site assessments were completed
for 74 sites. One of the facilities was no longer in existence.

Summary of Site Assessments

District 1 had the most facilities that caused concern. Safety concerns were listed for fifteen (15)
out of the nineteen (19) facilities. These facilities included the Drop Inn Center, the West End
Emergency Center, Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Seven Hills Neighborhood House,
Inc., VOA, the Mary Magdalene House, City Gospel Mission, St. Francis/St Joseph Worker
House, The Joseph House, Warriors of Vision Ministries, Inc., Justice Watch, Tender Mercies,
St. Vincent de Paul Community Pharmacy, Buddy’s Place, and the Lord’s Pantry. “Unsafe
neighborhood”, “loitering”, “intimidating suspects”, “maintenance” and “areas of concealment”
were identified most often. However, the Drop Inn Center, and the VOA had reports of violence,
public urination, littering, suspicious behaviors/drug sales or usage, drug paraphernalia on site,
prostitution, open containers, and public intoxication. The Drop Inn Center had the most reported
incidents of negative behaviors and building maintenance issues of any of the facilities on the
list.

A total of twenty-six (26) facilities on the list were located in District 4. Several of the facilities
were reported to be within or near a hospital complex and the evaluators reported “feeling safe.”
Seven (7) facilities were seen as being unsafe because of “intimidating subjects”. Most of the
other reasons listed for the unsafe feelings were related to building maintenance, poor lighting
and areas of concealment. Only Gods Property had reported incidents of public intoxication,
profanity, panhandling, and suspicious behaviors/drugs sales or usage.

28
The other three Police Districts reported facilities of concern, but most of the reports were related
to “areas of concealment”, “recessed areas”, “poor lighting”, “intimidating subjects”, “high
bushes”, “litter”, “building maintenance” and “neighborhood crime statistics.” None of the
facilities had reports of negative behaviors.

Crime Statistics
The Cincinnati Police Department provided crime statistics on each of the 75 social service
facilities provided on the list in each of the five police service area districts. The Calls For
Service (“CFS”) were provided for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 for each city block that
contained one of the 75 social service agencies. CFS reflect only calls for police service and do
not include any emergency, medical or fire calls. The 2008 information was provided for the
period covering January 1, 2008 to November 15, 2008. Figure 2 shows the location of the five
Police Service Areas. The CFS charts for all five districts are contained in Appendix 4.
Additionally, the Police Department provided information on arrests for Part 1 and Part 2 crimes
in each of the police service area districts. Part 1 crimes include homicide, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, theft, theft from autos, and auto theft. Part 2 crimes include
assault/menacing, arson, counterfeits, fraud, embezzlement, receiving, vandalism, weapon
offences, vice, sex offenses, drug offences, gambling offenses, offenses against the family, DUIs,
liquor establishment offenses, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, suspicion, traffic
offences, and parking offenses. A summary of each Police Service Area District follows:

POLICE SERVICE AREA DISTRICT 1

Calls For Service were made to nineteen social service facilities located within the boundaries of
Police District 1. This district covers the Central Business District, Mt Adams, Queensgate, the
West End, Pendleton and the Over-The-Rhine neighborhoods. Many of the Social Service
agencies were responsible for only a small percentage of the calls for service within the block in
which they are situated. Six (6) social service facilities in District 1 were responsible for 50% or
more of the calls for service in the block.
• St. Vincent De Paul Community Pharmacy located at 1125 Bank Street generated 6 out
of 11 calls or 55% in 2008. This number has decreased from 71% in 2006
• Tender Mercies, located at 24, 27, 29 West Twelfth Street generated 56 out of 105 CFS
or 53% of the calls. Although the percentage of calls to this facility has decreased since
2007, the total number of calls to this block has increased from 12 to 105. The number of
CFS to this block has fluctuated significantly from 2006 (197 CFS) to 2007 (12 CFS)
through 2008 (105 CFS).
• Shelter House Volunteer Group (a.k.a The Drop Inn Center) is located at 217 W. Twelfth
Street. The percentage of calls that this facility has generated has decreased from 79% to
52% since 2006. The total number of CFS to this block is substantially higher than any
other block in this district ranging from 804 CFS in 2006 to 446 CFS in 2008..
• The Volunteers of America facility is located at 115 E. McMicken Avenue. The number
of CFS to this block was substantially lower in 2008 than in 2007 or 2006, (7, 95 and 292
respectively). However, 5 out of the 7 calls (or 71%) were to this facility in 2008
compared to 6% in 2007 and 3% in 2006.

29
 • The YWCA of Greater Cincinnati is located at 898 Walnut Street. The CFS to this
facility, although decreasing, has remained high at 71%. The total number of calls to this
block has also decreased in both percentage and number.
• The Accountability and Credibility facility located at 1005 Walnut Street has the highest
percentage of calls on the block. While the number of total calls is relatively low
compared to other blocks, the total number of call to this block has gone up since 2006
along with the percentage of calls to this facility.
•
Arrests for Part1 and Part 2 Crimes in District 1
The number of arrests made in District 1 for Part 1 crimes totaled seven (7) in 2007 and four (4)
in 2008. The number of arrests made for Part 2 crimes was 87 in 2007. Forty-six (46) or 56% of
these Part 2 arrests were made at 217 W. 12th Street (The Drop Inn Center). In 2008, sixty-six
(66) arrests were made for Part 2 crimes. Forty-one or 62% of these arrests were made at 217 W.
12th Street. Ten (10) of the nineteen (19) agencies in District 1 were responsible for some of the
arrests made for Part 2 crimes.

POLICE SERVICE AREA DISTRICT 2

District 2 is located on the east side of the City and includes the neighborhoods of Evanston,
Hyde Park, Oakley, Madisonville, Pleasant Ridge, Kennedy Heights, Walnut Hills, East Walnut
Hills, the East End, Linwood, Columbia Tusculum and Mt. Washington. Twelve of the listed
social service facilities generated CFS. However, since 2006, only two facilities generated 50%
or more of the calls on a block.
• The Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services, located at 1322 E. McMillan Street,
generated 53% of the calls on the block in 2008 and 50% of the calls in 2007. This is up
from 39% of the CFS in 2006.
• Madisonville Mission Ministries, located at 4816 Ebersole Ave, generated 2 calls in
2006 and 2 calls in 2007 but no calls in 2008.

Arrests for Part 1 and Part 2 Crimes in District 2

No arrests were made in District 2 for Part 1 crimes in 2007 and one (1) arrest was made for a
Part1 crime in 2008. There were no arrests made for Part 2 crimes in 2007and three (3) arrests
made for Part 2 crimes in 2008. The arrests were made at two of the twelve listed agencies.

POLICE SERVICE AREA DISTRICT 3

District 3 is located on the West side of the city and encompasses the neighborhoods of Sayler
Park, Riverside, Sedamville, the Price Hill neighborhoods, Fairmount neighborhoods, Westwood
neighborhoods, English Woods, Millvale, S. Cumminsville and the Fay Apartments. This district
has six social service agencies that generated CFS. Only one facility, Free Truth Enterprises,
located at 2985 Timbercrest Drive, generated 79% of the CFS in 2006. Since that time, the CFS
have decreased to 48% for this facility. Other blocks in this district experienced a high number of
CFS (200-258) in 2008, but a very low percentage (2% to 4%) of the calls were to social service
facilities.

Arrests for Part 1 and Part 2 Crimes in District 3

No arrests were made for Part 1 crimes at any of the six listed agencies in 2007 or 2008. Two (2)
arrests were made for Part 2 crimes and in both 2007 and 2008.

30
POLICE SERVICE AREA DISTRICT 4
District 4 encompasses the neighborhoods ofMt Auburn, Corryville, Avondale, North Avondale,
Paddock Hills, Bond Hill, Roselawn, Hartwell and Carthage. This district has twenty-six (26)
social service facilities that generated CFS. Four(4) facilities exceeded 50% of the calls for the
block.
• Community Bridges of Hope located at 2926 Park Avenue consistently had between 71%
to 100% of the CFS. However, the total number of calls were very low ranging from 12
calls in 2006 to 8 calls in 2008.
• Crossroads Center located at 311 E. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive generated 1 call or
100% of the calls in 2008.
• Guest of Cincinnati located at 1911 Lawn Avenue generated 61% of the calls in 2008.
While the percentage of calls has increased from 51% in 2006, the number of total calls
in this block is down from 79 to 38 CFS.
• COS Community Development Corporation located at 65 E. Hollister Street generated
100% of the 7 calls in 2007 but only 5% of the 44 calls in 2008.

Arrests for Part 1 and Part 2 Crimes in District 4

In 2007, there were 2 arrests made for Part 1 crimes at the Recovery Resource Center. In 2008,
one Part 1 arrest was made, again at the Recovery Resource Center. There were 33 arrests made
for Part 2 crimes in 2007, of which 30 or 91 % were at the Recovery resource Center. In 2008,
twenty (20) arrests were made for Part 2 crimes with 17 or 85% being at the Recovery resource
center. The Recovery Resource Center generated only 15% or less of the CFS on the block but
accounted for 91% of the arrests for Part 2 crimes in 2007 and 85% of the arrests for Part 2
crimes in 2008. There are total of 26 listed agencies in District 4.

POLICE SERVICE AREA DISTRICT 5

District 5 includes the neighborhoods of College Hill, Winton Hills, Spring Grove Village,
Northside and Mt. Airy. Six (6) social service facilities generated calls from 2006 to 2008.
• Mt. Airy Shelter located at 2660 Diehl Road is the only facility that generated a high
percentage of calls ( 96% to 100%) from 2006 to 2008. However, it should be noted that
while the percentage of calls was high, the actual number of total calls was very low
ranging from 23 in 2006 to 11 in 2008.

Arrests for Part 1 and Part 2 Crimes in District 5

In 2007 and 2008 there were no arrests made for Part 1 crimes in District 5. There was one (1)
arrest for a Part 2 crime in both 2007 and 2008.

In summary, the CFS reports show that the most facilities generating 50% or more of the total
CFS in a block are located in District 1. District 1 also has nine blocks that generate at least 100
CFS per year. District 4 has the highest number of social service agencies that generate calls but
only four of those facilities meet or exceed 50%. The Recovery Resource Center generated only
15% or less of the CFS on the block but accounted for 91% of the arrests for Part 2 crimes in
2007 and 85% of the arrests for Part 2 crimes in 2008. District 4 has 8 blocks that generate at
least 100 CFS per year. While District 3 has the lowest number of agencies generating CFS, four
out of the six blocks that generate calls for service exceeded 100 calls per year in 2006. This has
dropped to 2 blocks exceeding 100 CFS in 2008. Also, District 3 has the lowest percentage of

31
calls to social service agencies. The Shelter House Volunteer Group, which is located in District
1 (aka the Drop Inn Center), generated more calls for service than any facility in the other police
districts and also generated the highest number of arrests for Part 2 crimes.

32
FIGURE 2

33
ANALYSIS

The challenge confronting city leadership is how to provide humane, dignified and
comprehensive solutions to the poverty and homelessness in the City, while revitalizing
neighborhoods for everyone. Urban policies must respect the rights of the poor, the disabled, and
the mentally ill as neighborhood residents while at the same time striving to provide
neighborhoods with a decent quality of life by protecting them from deteriorating influences.

Traditional theories indicate that to effectively provide human services, facilities should be sited
to maximize access for their clients while minimizing the cost of services. Consequently, human
service facilities have been concentrated mostly in lower-income, inner-city neighborhoods (Dear
and Wolch 1987). Additionally, the path of least resistance typically led social service providers
to locate in struggling neighborhoods where there is the added benefit of low cost rents and/or
properties. The City of Cincinnati is comprised of fifty two neighborhoods. For data collection
purposes, the City Planning Department created 48 Statistical Neighborhood Areas (SNAs) based
on census tracts. These SNAs closely follow, but do not exactly match, the neighborhood
boundaries as defined by the Community Council by-laws. Thirty-three of the 48 SNAs are
considered low/moderate income areas. Figure 3 locates the low/moderate income SNAs in the
City of Cincinnati. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the residents in the Lower Price Hill
neighborhood have an income below the low-moderate income threshold. The Fay Apartments
neighborhood has 92.5% of its residents under the low-moderate income threshold and 90.9% of
the South Cumminsville/Millvale neighborhood is low-moderate income. Clearly, with 68% of all
neighborhoods below the low-moderate income threshold, there is a demonstrated need for social
service agencies and programs in the City of Cincinnati. However, the majority of the human
service agencies are not concentrated in the neighborhoods with the highest percentage of
low/moderate income residents. The five SNAs with the highest number of social service
agencies and programs are CBD-Riverfront (45 agencies), Avondale (40 Agencies), Over-The-
Rhine (21 agencies), Corryville (22 agencies) and Walnut Hills (24 agencies). These five
neighborhoods fit the traditional theory for siting human service facilities. However, 28 additional
neighborhoods also have high poverty rates but have relatively low levels of service. This
determination was made from a list of 404 nonprofit agencies based on the Northern Kentucky
University (“NKU”) research study that identified 9700 non-profits in Greater Cincinnati and its
adjacent counties. The NKU list was reduced by eliminating nonprofits outside of the city
boundaries and categories of nonprofit agencies that were easily identified as “no concern” to the
SSC. The final list resulted in 404 agencies located within the City of Cincinnati with the
potential to adversely impact host communities. Figure 4 lists the Cincinnati neighborhoods, the
percentage of low/moderate income residents by neighborhood and the number of nonprofit social
service agencies and providers in each neighborhood. Based on the theory of maximizing access
for clients, the facilities and programs should be dispersed to provide service to other low-
moderate income neighborhoods.

It has been said that implementation of City Council Resolution No. 41-2008 calling for the
deconcentration of social services, “would deprive those in need of such services and would
prevent the expansion of such services because the “Over-the-Rhine community and the adjacent
community of the West End have some of the highest concentrations of homelessness, poverty,
unemployment, and families and individuals in need of a wide variety of social services and

34
advocacy in the City of Cincinnati” (Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v. City
of Cincinnati, 1:08CV603, pg 13 ¶40, S.D. Ohio 2008). The Over- the–Rhine and the West End
communities do have high concentrations of poverty. However, the attached map and chart show
that many other areas of the City also have needs for services and programs.

35
FIGURE 3

36
 FIGURE 4
SNA # Neighborhoods % of low moderate income person # of Social Services
1 Queensgate 0% 1
2 West End 84% 14
3 CBD-Riverfront 66% 45
4 Over-the-Rhine 89% 21
5 Mt. Adams 33% 1
6 Mt. Auburn 68% 9
7 Fairview/Clifton Heights 67% *
8 Camp Washington 90% 8
9 University Heights 75% 13
10 Corryville 81% 22
11 Walnut Hills 80% 24
12 Evanston 71% 11
13 East Walnut Hills/Evanston 55% 0
14 East Walnut Hills 47% 19
15 East End 61% 2
16 California 29% 0
17 Mt. Washington 45% 5
18 Mt. Lookout/Columbia Tusculum 29% 0
19 Mt. Lookout 15% 0
20 Linwood 77% 1
21 Hyde Park 24% 5
22 Oakley 41% 8
23 Madisonville 64% 7
24 Pleasant Ridge 43% 9
25 Kennedy Heights 51% 6
26 Hartwell 49% 5
27 Carthage 64% 1
28 Roselawn 62% 12
29 Bond Hill 64% 16
30 North Avondale/Paddock Hills 43% 19
31 Avondale 79% 40
32 Clifton 48% 11
33 Winton Place 63% 1
34 Northside 65% 4
35 South Cumminsville/Millvale 91% 4
36 Winton Hills 89% 3
37 College Hill 47% 12
38 Mt. Airy 59% 4
39 Fay Apartments 93% 0
40 North Fairmount/English Woods 88% 0
41 South Fairmount 81% 6
42 Lower Price Hill 93% 4
43 East Price Hill 68% 7
44 West Price Hill 52% 5
45 Westwood 60% 14
46 Sedamsville/Riverside 64% 1
47 Riverside/Saylor Park 58% 2
48 Saylor Park 47% 0
CINCINNATI 60% 402
* Fairview/Clifton Hts. Have been combined with University Hts. To form CUF - see #9 for # of SS

November 2008 Prepared by the Cincinnati Department of City Planning

37
Alternatives

City zoning regulations are intended to provide “rules” for what uses can and cannot be located in
a given area. Regulations are necessary for the protection of the rights of property owners, as well
as the economic well-being of the city. However, zoning is only one tool that can be used by
municipal governments to address this issue. It is not the only tool, and may not be the best tool to
address the issues of poverty and its impact on individuals and communities. Concerns over
property values and secondary impacts due to the location of social service facilities, have led
many communities across the United States to implement various controls on what they consider
to be “controversial human service facilities.” Staff researched controls that other cities have put
into practice and summarized the various options in the following discussion and charts.

1. Distance Separations
The Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and most
courts that have addressed the issue of distance separation, agree that density restrictions are
generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). However, they also believe, “… if a
neighborhood came to be largely composed of group homes, that could adversely affect
individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons
with disabilities into the community” (U.S. Department of Justice 2008). “A consideration of
over-concentration could be considered in this context” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008).
• Green Bay, Wisconsin uses separation requirements. Their community living
arrangements provide for “community based residential facilities”, which are comparable
to Cincinnati’s “supportive housing” definition. No community based residential facility
may be established in Green Bay within 2,500 feet of any other such facility except with
a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission must consider the character and use
of the surrounding buildings and the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Also the community living arrangement use is limited by a population ratio. Shelter
facilities are conditional uses in the OR (office/residential) district, NC (neighborhood
center) district and the D (downtown) district. They are not permitted by-right in any
districts.
• Rochester, New York requires a one-quarter mile distance separation for homeless
shelters. Rochester has had this requirement in their code since the 1970’s. At the time
the regulation was established, the city leadership felt that concentrating facilities had the
same effects as institutionalization.
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma requires that the Planning Department staff identify other
similar uses within one mile of a proposed emergency shelter or feeding site facility.
Similar uses in this category include domestic violence shelters, other emergency shelters
and feeding sites, forced detention or correction facilities, residential facilities for
dependent and neglected children, residential facilities for drug or alcohol treatment
centers, and transitional mental health residential facilities. The Planning Department
staff must provide the appropriate data and information to aid in deliberations of the
Planning Commission and City Council in approving these uses.
• Detroit, Michigan. In addition to the city licensing requirements, companion zoning
ordinance regulations were enacted in response to neighborhood concerns. The intent of
the zoning regulations are to disperse emergency shelters throughout the city. Homeless
shelters are a special land use that requires a public hearing with notification of property

38
 owners within 300 feet. Distance separations are required. No shelter can be located
closer that 3000 radial feet from another shelter or closer than 500 feet from an adult
foster care facility, pre-release adjustment center or substance abuse service facility.
Shelters are encouraged in higher intensity districts where higher intensity uses already
exist. To respond to the need for confidentiality for HIV/AIDS and for victims of
domestic violence, shelters for these users are allowed by-right where hospitals and
nursing homes are permitted. The goals is to have shelters become integral positive part
of community life. (Mahaffey 1997)

Regulations for additional cities are listed in the attached “Distance Separation” chart.

2. Size Limitations
• Mesa, Arizona requires that shelters should be limited in size to contain no more than
fifty (50) beds.
• Lacy, Washington limits homeless shelters to 40 residents.
• Dallas, Texas limits halfway houses to 50 residents.
• Cleveland, Ohio limits halfway houses to 100 residents.

Regulations for additional cities are listed in the attached “Size Limitations” chart.

3. Good Neighbor/Management Plans

Imposing reasonable requirements for adequate supervision in group living facilities for children
does not violate the FHA. It would seem reasonable then, that requiring adequate supervision for
any individuals that may not be able to respond to an emergency due to disability would also not
violate the FHA.
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma In Oklahoma City the inordinate concentration of
emergency shelters and feeding sites is discouraged and locations dispersed throughout
the community are promoted. The City requires that the application for emergency
shelters and feeding sites include a description of the type of program proposed, the
number of participants that would be in the program at one time, the number of staff that
would be associated with the program and their general duties, the type of supervision
that would be provided for the participants in the program, the means to mitigate any
impact upon the surrounding land uses from the operation of the program, and the
behavior of the participants in the program. The City Council determines whether an
inordinate concentration of these uses would result from establishment of an additional
such use in a particular area. The City Council considers all facts and circumstances
related to an application and areas surrounding the proposed site, including, but not
limited to, the differences or similarities between the existing uses and the uses proposed,
and the compatibility or incompatibility of such uses in the particular area.
• Portland, Oregon recognizes that short-term housing and mass shelters have differing
impacts, and encourages providers to locate in existing structures and work with
neighbors. They require written security plan that will inhibit loitering, public
drunkenness, drug trafficking and criminal activity. The provider is to keep the area
within 200 feet of the shelter free from litter and graffiti.

Regulations for additional cities are listed in the attached “Good Neighbor Plan” chart.

39
4. Licensing of facilities
Regulation and licensing of group home are themselves subject to scrutiny under the Fair
Housing Act because they can be discriminatory. Some cities do require homeless shelters to be
licensed.
• Detroit, Michigan In 1997 Detroit Michigan adopted The Homeless Shelter Licensing
ordinance to ensure that whenever children, women and men become homeless, they
would have decent, safe, and healthy refuge. The ordinance provides the city with tools to
regulate and monitor conditions of emergency homeless shelters. The standard put into
place include twenty-four hour access for shelter residents for restrooms and medications;
adequate staff/resident ratios, clean sheets changed on a weekly basis; assurance of
school attendance for minors; fire safety regulations and nutritious meals. Monitoring and
evaluations are coordinated by the city’s Senior Citizens Homeless Department.
Quarterly progress reports are provided to determine the effectiveness of the ordinance.
In addition, companion zoning ordinance regulations were enacted in response to
neighborhood concerns. The intent of the zoning regulations is to disperse emergency
shelters throughout the city.
• Phillipsburg, New Jersey requires that homeless shelters obtain a $700.00 license
annually. Standards for denial of a license include nature and development of the
surrounding property, proximity of churches, school, public buildings, the effect on
traffic, number of other similar entities, suitability of the applicant to establish, maintain
and operate a homeless shelter.

Regulations for additional cities are listed in the attached “Licensing” chart.

5. Population Ratio limitations

• Green Bay, Wisconsin. Green Bay’s community living arrangements provide for
“community based residential facilities”, which are comparable to Cincinnati’s
“supportive housing” definition. The community living arrangement is only permitted as
long as the total capacity within any alderman district does not exceed 25 or 1% of the
population of the district, whichever is greater. When that capacity is reached, no
additional community living arrangements are permitted within the district until the
capacity is reduced or the district’s population increases, thus changing the ratio. This
ratio is also applied citywide. Community living arrangements are permitted under these
standards as long as the total capacity does not exceed one percent (1%) of the City’s
total population. When that total capacity is reached, no additional community living
arrangements are permitted within the City until their capacity is reduced or the City’s
population increases, thus changing the ratio. Shelter facilities are conditional uses in the
OR (office/residential) district, NC (neighborhood Center) district and the D (downtown)
district. They are not permitted by-right in any districts
• Covington, Kentucky. Covington permits one (1) youth shelter per 25,000 persons in the
city and no more than one addiction treatment facility per 25,000 persons residing in the
city.
• Ontario, Canada limits shelters to 82 beds per 100,000 residents.
• Miami, Florida does not permit community based residential facilities in any census
tract where residents of existing community residential homes or community based

40
 residential facilities comprise two (2) percent or more of that census tract’s current total
population as estimated by the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department.

6. Additional Zoning Regulations

• Mesa, Arizona. In addition to obtaining a council use permit, social service facilities
must comply with the following regulations:
o Social service facilities should be designed in such a way as to provide patrons
with basic amenities such as restrooms, drinking water, and seating areas.
o Proposed new services should be supportive of existing services and should
avoid duplication of similar programs already in operation. There should
also be administrative cooperation among existing service providers.
o Social services providing homeless shelters, charity dining facilities, and similar uses
should not be located along Main Street in the TCC zone.
o Shelters, charity dining facilities, and similar communal facilities should be operated
in a manner which ensures that all guests are treated with dignity and are provided a
sanitary, healthy, and safe environment.
o Shelters must provide information to the City on the hours of operation, number of
beds to be provided, and at the time of application, whether this is a permanent or
temporary location (e.g. indicate length of lease or property ownership).
o Shelters should be limited in size to contain no more than fifty (50) beds.
o Shelters offering overnight sleeping facilities should provide at least thirty (30) sq. ft.
of useable open space per bed. When services will regularly be provided for children,
at least forty (40) sq. ft. of open space per bed should be provided. This open space
must be enclosed by appropriate screening such as a fence or landscaping.
o Shelters providing overnight-sleeping facilities must contain restroom facilities
meeting requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
o Facilities providing food at minimal or no cost, including charity dining services,
must serve such meals within buildings or in enclosed courtyards or patio areas.
When meals are served outside, screening must be provided through construction of a
wall or landscaping around the eating area.
o Charity dining services and other facilities providing food at minimal or no cost must
provide the City with a schedule and guidelines for their operations (including such
things as days, hours, loitering control policy, and security provisions).

Regulations for additional cities are listed in the attached “Additional Regulations” chart.

7. Council Use Permits

Council use permits are individually and explicitly approved only by city council for specific
uses.
• Mesa, Arizona. The Mesa Zoning Ordinance requires social service providers to apply
for a Council Use Permit before locating in the appropriate zoning district. Guidelines are
provided for use in evaluating a proposed facility and are also used by service providers
when planning and designing their proposed facilities. Existing facilities that significantly
expand or change uses from one type of service to another are also subject to the Council
Use Permit process.

41
8. Overlay Districts
Research did not locate any information on the use of zoning overlay districts for impacted
neighborhoods. The final report of the Impacts and Concentration subcommittee recommended
the following:
• City Government could establish a procedure whereby a community council petitions
City Council to designate their community as “impacted.” All stakeholders in that
community, including social services, would be given the opportunity to present their
arguments for or against the impaction case, based on (but not limited to) criteria relating
to concentration: population, median household incomes, and percentage of public
housing could also be relevant factors to be considered. Introduction of any new social
service providers into an “impacted” community would need to justify its relevance based
on the need in the community and if similar services are currently present.

9. Municipal Code Chapter 761- Chronic Nuisances

The existing provisions of Cincinnati’s Chronic Nuisance section of the Municipal Code are
applicable only to apartments and rental units. This Ordinance could be revised to include all
social service facilities or specific social service facilities such as homeless shelters.

10. Integrated Services - Campuses

The Issues and Concentration subcommittee hoped that their work would be a catalyst for
encouraging the Planning Commission and City Council to look at comprehensive solutions to
“revitalization” as well as to investigate effective social service delivery models that reduce
“negative” impacts.” Best practice trends point to collaboration of certain agencies/services into
collaborative efforts by sharing a common physical location.
• San Antonio, Texas. The Haven For Hope campus centralizes a multitude of services for
the homeless 1.5 miles west of downtown on 22 acres in San Antonio, Texas. The
purpose of this facility is to provide a comprehensive process from beginning to end that
allows for the transformation of a person coming off the streets. It includes a medical
clinic, dental clinic, vision clinic, podiatry clinic, mental health and substance abuse
treatment facility, preventative health care, family counseling, emergency food, rental
and utility assistance, housing for the homeless and abuse victims, identity recovery for
jobs and welfare, long-term supportive care for senior citizens, the sick and disabled,
food services and culinary training and Prospects Courtyard. Prospects Courtyard is a
covered open area for the chronically homeless that are not comfortable entering a
building. It allows these individuals to shower, eat and sleep on premises. The facility has
24-hour security provided by the San Antonio Police Department that includes 6-9
security guards and two armed guards. The site was selected to minimize the impact on
residential neighborhoods. Operating Haven For Hope saves significant taxpayer dollars
by minimizing the misuse of emergency services and reducing the use of costly public
services (Campa, 2007).

11. Siting Incentives

• Funding tied to policy of integrated services and deconcentration of neighborhoods.
The City has a Human Services Policy that calls for 1.5% of the total City budget to be
allocated to addressing poverty related issues. In recent years, the City has not been able to
meet the full 1.5% funding because of budget constraints. However, in 2008 the budgeted

42
 amount for human services from the general fund was approximately $2,523,000 or 0.7%
of the General Fund budget. In 2007 the budgeted amount was $2,600,000 and in 2006 the
budgeted amount was $2,471,000. The recommended budget for 2009 is $3,315,930. The
City could tie this funding to a policy requiring integrated services and deconcentation of
services in neighborhoods. Ottawa, Canada has a housing policy that requires that no
additional shelters be financed by the City.

• City-owned property.
Additionally, properties held by the City could be reviewed to determine if they are
appropriate locations for an integrated service campus. For example, the Cincinnati Land
Reutilization Program (“CLRP”) currently holds a 10-acre site in Westwood. Efforts could
be made to work with the neighborhood and providers to determine if this site would be an
appropriate location for a campus facility. Appropriate sites could be made available to
providers at a reduced cost for deconcentration and integration efforts that would provide
a benefit to the public.

12. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance or Policies

Some cities and states have regulations that increase housing choice by establishing requirements
and providing incentives to construct housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income
households. Inclusionary techniques include specific requirements for a minimum percentage of
low and moderate-income housing as part of any development and density bonuses for low and
moderate-income units. Elimination of requirements beyond those needed for safe and sanitary
housing is another technique designed to provide more affordable housing.
• Montgomery County, Maryland has the largest inclusionary zoning requirements in the
country.
• Massachusetts zoning law requires 25,000 affordable housing units targeting neighborhoods
with less than 10% affordable housing

Conclusion
Shelters, soup kitchens, halfway houses and other controversial land uses such as pawn shops,
sexually-oriented businesses, all- night food stores, drive-through restaurants, billboards and
alternative financial institutions have all been accused of having a negative effect on property
values and crime rates. While the correlation seems undeniable between social service facility
locations and areas of high crime and low property values, snapshot studies looking at
neighborhoods before and after a new human service facility moves in are not available. This
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate and determine what, if any, regulations should be
developed by the City for determining the location and concentration of human service facilities.
However, based on the number of cities that have adopted specific regulations for social service
facilities, many cities are facing similar concerns with social service agencies Staff contacted
many of the cities cited to determine why they had implemented the regulations on various types
of social service facilities and if they had completed studies documenting impacts prior to their
implementation. All that were contacted stated that they had not completed specific studies.
They did identify many of the same impacts voiced by Cincinnati residents. The concentration of
social services facilitates such as homeless shelters, halfway houses and soup kitchens was also a
concern to several jurisdictions. Many acknowledged that these uses have a clear social

43
usefulness and value but that they also have undeniable adverse effects on residential
environments. Communities regulating such facilities felt that only a limited number of facilities
could be absorbed before neighborhoods would experience significant deterioration in the quality
of life.

All uses have impacts. Some uses can have negative on-site and/or off-site impacts. Zoning
recognizes these impacts and imposes location restrictions on different uses according to their
density, and intensity. Zoning districts also separate incompatible uses and require buffering
between certain uses and districts. Zoning cannot regulate people’s behaviors or activities that
occur on the streets or sidewalks. While zoning cannot regulate behaviors, it can regulate land
uses where these behaviors occur and their proximity to sensitive other uses such as schools,
parks and residential areas.

Regulations are necessary for the protection of the rights of property owners, as well as the
economic well-being of the City. Property owners must be accountable for their properties and
for the behaviors of individuals using their property whether it be bar or tavern owner, an
apartment complex or rental unit, a commercial or industrial enterprise, or a social service
agency. The Director of the Drop Inn Center said, “I’m concerned about efforts that aren’t aimed
at reducing poverty, but zone it away and move it around” (Pipoly, 2008). Zoning alone cannot
solve the City’s high level of poverty. It will take a comprehensive strategy and many tools to
address an issue as complex as poverty. However, zoning can be one of the tools used to sustain
the quality of our neighborhoods and protect them from deteriorating influences.

44
 Distance Seperations
City Size of Seperation Facility Type Comments

Covington, Kentucky One mile. Homeless Shelter from another shelter.

1
500 Ft. Homeless Shelter from a school.

Dallas, Texas One mile. Homeless Shelter from another shelter.

2
Palmdale, California 1,320 Ft. Shelter from another shelter.

3
500 Ft. Shelter from a school.

150 Ft. Shelter from any single-family residential zone.

Cleveland, Ohio Shelter from any residential zone.

500 Ft.
Halfway House from lots occupied by a
playground, public park, public recreation
center, church, public library, pre-school,
daycare, primary or secondary school.
500 Ft.
4 Halfway House from another correctional no more than two
halfway house correctional halfway houses
shall be located in any police
2,000 Ft. district.
Lacey, Washington 300 Ft. Halfway House from licensed daycare center, The requirement can be
public or private school. waived by daycare operator if
the property is adjacent to
5 the host agency.
Broward County, 500 Ft. Homeless Shelter from any residentially zoned
6 Florida district.
Miami, Florida 2500 Ft Community base residential faciltiy from like
7 facility Also has population ratios
Hamilton, Canada 984 Ft. Homeless Shelter from any other residential
care facility, emergency shelter, or corrections
8 residence.
Toronto, Canada 820 Ft. Homeless Shelter from another shelter.

9
10 Ottawa, Canada 1,640 Ft. Group Living Facility between urban areas.
Group Living Facility between facility and
3,281 Ft. other residents in rural setting.

45
11 Portland, Oregon Provisions for shelters include density
limitatons, max. occupancy regulations and
hours of operation. Where two or more
residential zones are within 150 feet of a
Group Living development, the controlling
regulations are those of the lower density
zone.
150 Ft.
12 Roseville, California Temporary Resident Shelter from any
preschool, elementary school, high school, or
any zone where temporary resident shelters
are not permitted.
Group Living facilities must
be included in the mission
statement of the campus’s
impact mitigation plan; The
impact mitigation plan’s
implemented mitigation
measures must
accommodate the impacts
the Group Living facility will
create.

500 Ft.
13 Elko, Nevada Halway House and another such facility.

1,320 Ft.
Gainesville, Florida Halfway House between one halfway house
1,320 Ft. and another facility.
Halfway House away from food distribution for
the needy.

2,000 Ft.
Food Distribution Center from the University of
2,000 Ft. Florida Campus.
14 Food Distribution Center for destitute people
cannot be located within a 2 mile radius of one
2 mile radius another.
15 Columbus, Ohio Halfway House be located no closer to another The halfway house should be
halfway house or community residential located in an eligible census
treatment center; to any institution similar in tract. A census tract shall be
nature but occupied by more than thirty eligible for such location if it
residents; or to a school, nursing home, rest contains no halfway house or
home or home for the aging. community residential
treatment center.
1,000 Ft.
16 Shelby, North Halfway House from another Halfway House.
Carolina 2,000 Ft.
17 Henderson, Nevada Halfway House from multifamily
developments, these establishments are only
1,500 Ft. allowed in individually owned units.

46
18 Transitional Housing between such uses, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest
property line of an approved facility to the
nearest property line of another Transitional
Housing facility.
Prescott, Arizona 1,320 Ft.
19 Residential Care Facility from exsiting facility.
Anchorage, Alaska 1,000 Ft.
20 Green Bay, Community Living between any such facility.
Wiscounsin 2,500 Ft.
21 Rochester, New York 1/4 mile Homeless Shelter from other homeless
shelters and similar uses.
22 Detroit, Michigan 3,000 Ft. Homeless Shelter from other homeless
shelter.
500 Ft. Homeless Shelter from and Adult Foster Care
Facility.
23 Boston, 600 Ft. Group Living Facility from another Group
Massachusetts Living Facility.
24 Miramar, Florida Homeless Shelter from and Adult Foster Care
1,000 Ft. Facility.
1,200 Ft. Homeless Shelter from lots occupied by a
playground, public park, public recreation
center, church, public library, pre-school,
daycare, primary or secondary school.

25 San Diego, California Homeless Day Center from an emergency measured from property line
1/4 Mile shelter. to property line.
26 Marshall Township, Halfway House from another Halfway House.
Pennsylvania
1,000 Ft.
Halfway House from Amusement park; Camp
(for minors activity); Child care facility;
Churches and similar places of worship;
Community center; Library; Museum; Park;
Playground; School; Other lands where
1,000 Ft. minors congregate;
27 Spokane County, Halfway House from Public library, Public
Washington playground or park, Public or private school
and its grounds of kindergarten to 12th grade,
Child day-care center, Place of worship such
as a church, mosque, synagogue or temple,
Another halfway house.
1/4 of a mile

47
28 Little Rock, Arkansas
1,500 Ft.
29 Knoxville, Tennessee
Separation, spacing and procedural
requirements for homeless shelters will be
determined by the planning commission so as
not to adversely impact the surrounding
properties and neighborhood. Unless the
commission determines that a different area is
more appropriate, a neighborhood shall be
defined as an area incorporating all properties
lying within one thousand five hundred (1,500)
feet of the site for which the permit is
requested.
Halfway House from from a park, school, or
day care center.

300 Ft.
30 Small (24 beds) shelter for
Sacramento, Sm. and Lg. Shelters for adults from any other adults and lg. (over 24 beds)
California 1000 Ft temporary residential shelter. shleters for adults.
Sm. And Lg. Shelters for adults from public Small (24 bed) shelter for
500 Ft. park, schools K-12, churches and residential adults and lg. (over 24 beds)
zones shleters for adults.
Sm. Shelter from other temporary residential Other Small Shelters and
1000 Ft. shelters Large Shelters.
31
Rochester, Minnesota 500-1000 Ft. Offender Transitional Housing from like facility Also population ratios

48
 Size Limitations
City Regulations Facility Type Comments
1 Red Bluff, California Maximum of 4 Families, or a Homeless
maximum of 4 unrelated persons. The Shelter
maximum number of beds or clients
permitted to be served (eating,
showering, and or spending the night)
nightly shall not exceed 1 per 125 sq.
ft. of floor area.
2 Achorage, Alaska 150 sqaure feet per resident. Homeless
Shelter
3 Mesa, Arizona Limited to 50 beds Shelter

4 Des Moines, Iowa 300 square feet of lot size for each
resident. A minimum of 80 square
feet of usable floor space per bed, and
usable floor space of no less than
eight feet in any major dimension.
5 Lacey, Washington No more than 40 residents shall be
allowed.
6 Lawrence, Kansas Not exceeds 15 persons maximum.
7 Los Angeles, California Residential facility which serves six or Community
fewer persons
Homeless
Shelter Each such facility shall contain at least one
lavatory and one toilet per ten residents or
fraction thereof and one tub or shower per 15
residents or fraction thereof. There shall be a
minimum of one bathroom with tub or
shower, toilet and lavatory on each floor
which has resident bedrooms.
Homeless (1) The City may further limit the number of
Shelter residents as site conditions dictate. (2) The
use of a building as a homeless shelter shall
not exceed ninety (90) days.
Homeless
Shelter
Shall be considered a family for the purpose.
Care Facility Residential care facilities, family care home,
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery facility

8 Dallas, Texas No more than 50 residents permitted. Halfway House

9 Denver, Colorado No more than 200 beds, the
maximum number of beds in the
shelter shall not exceed 350.
10 Roseville, California Shall not exceed 12 residents,
excluding staff in occupancy.
11 Gainesville, Florida No more than 30 persons can be
housed in a 24-hour period.
12 Cleveland, Ohio A maximum of 100 residents subject Halfway House No correctional halfway house may operate
to correctional oversight shall be
accommodated.
Homeless There shall be no more than nine hundred
Shelter and fifty (950) beds in permanent homeless
shelters in any council district.
Temporary
Shelter
Halfway House Residences for destitute people as accessory
uses to places of religious assembly can
have no more than 15 persons housed in a
24-hour period
with a total resident population of less than
20 persons, which twenty persons may
include individuals not subject to correctional
oversight.

49
13 Columbus, Ohio Occupied by no more than 30 Halfway House Limited by the size of the existing or
residents. proposed building and all its allocation of
space for sleeping quarters, except that the
board of zoning adjustment may approve a
larger number solely for the reason that the
proposal’s economical feasibility is tied to
such larger number of residents.
14 Ottawa, Canada 30 residents maximum Halfway House No resident limit on denser areas zoned R6
or higher.

15 Shelby, North Carolina No more than 30 residents. Halfway House

16 Pasadena, California No more than 10 residents at a time. Temporary maximum of 60 days.

Shelter
17 Phillipsburg, New Jersey maximum occupancy shall be no Homeless Should have at least 1 fully equiped kitchen.
greater than 15 persons per site. Shelter
18 Spokane County, There shall be no more than 20 Halfway House
Washington residents.
19 Witchita, Kansas housing no more than 16 persons. Group Homes
& Halfway
House
20 Knoxville, Tennessee maximum capacity of five (5) persons Halfway House
22 Sacremento, California The size of the temporary resident
shelter shall be in character with the
surrounding neighborhood.

50
 Good Neighborhood Plans
City Regulations Facility Type Comments
1 Roseville, The size of the temporary resident shelter shall be in Temporary Shelter
California character with the surrounding neighborhood.

2 San Diego, Requires a number of impact mitigation plans including a Emergency Center
California loitering control plan to minimize the congregation of
overnight residents during daylight hours in the vicinity of the
shelter and litter control to provide for the removal of litter in
the vicinity of the shelter on a regular basis.

A communication plan that describes how the provider will Homeless Day
communicate with the local community, neighborhood, and Center
business organizations, and with adjacent neighbors on a
regular basis, and how community issues concerns will be
addressed; plan to minimize loitering in the vicinity of the
facility and a litter control plan on the facility on a regular
basis.
3 Rochester, A litter control program must include at least 2 trash Homeless Shelter
New York receptacles on site for customer use, located next to
walkways. At a minimum, the program must also address
daily on site litter pick-up, customer awareness activities, and
off site litter pick-up. A loitering control program is required,
and must, as a minimum address such things locating
telephone booths, benches, tables, and other activity areas
that can be viewed and controlled by employees. The person
on duty must be able to monitor grounds, facility and resident
activities to help prevent theft and physical harm.

4 Portland, These regulations recognize that short term housing and Short Term
Oregon mass shelters have differing impacts, and encourages Housing & Mass
providers to locate in existing structures and work with Shelters
neighbors. Requires written securitt plan that will inhibit
loitering, public drunkenness, drug trafficking and criminal
activity. The provider is to keep the area within 200 feet of
the shelter free from litter and grafitti.
5 Minneapolis, Requires a Management Plan to mitigate impacts Homeless Shelter
Minnesota
6 Covington, Are appropriate if they meet the criteria listed and unless Youth Shelter
Kentucky clear evidence is presented the deleterious impacts involving
noise, traffic, safety, or property values will result from the
establishment of a shelter at a particular location.
Are appropriate if they meet the criteria listed and unless Addiction
clear evidence is presented the deleterious impacts involving Treatment Facility
noise, traffic, safety, or property values will result from the
establishment of a shelter at a particular location.

51
7 Mesa, Arizona Should be located in a manner consistent with existing Social Service
zoning and land use. Over time a facility location plan should Facility
be designed by and approved by, social service providers and
the City Council. Proposed new services should be
supportive of existing services and should avoid being
duplicative of similar programs already in operation. In
general services should not be located along main street. See
the discussion section under "additional Regulations".
8 Spokane shall demonstrate that the halfway house does not constitute Halfway House
County, a significant adverse impact to the health, safety and welfare.
Washington
9 Des Moines, If after issuance of the required permit evidence comes to the Homeless Shelter &
Iowa attention of the zoning enforcement officer that operation of Group Care
such facility may be causing unreasonable and chronic traffic Facilities
congestion in the streets, unreasonable and chronic noise in
the neighborhood, or danger to the health, safety and general
welfare of its occupants or of occupants of other property in
the neighborhood, the zoning enforcement officer shall refer
the matter to the board of adjustment. Each such facility shall
provide supervision 24 hours a day by persons responsible
for the care of the residents.

52

City
Covington, Kentucky
1
2 Prescott, Arizona
3 Detroit, Michigan
4 Phillipsburg, New Jersey
5 Spokane County, Washington
6 Marshall Twp, Pennsylvania
7 Spokane County, Washington
Licensing
Regulations Facility Type Comments
Licensure for the program operated at the Addiction Treatment
facility must be obtained in accordance with Facility
Non-medical alcohol treatment and education
center regulations.
Whether allowed by right or by Conditional Halfway House
Use Permit, the request shall be evaluated
based on occupancy load and parking
adequacy. All such transitional housing
providers shall register with the Community
Development Department to assess whether
the use
In 1997 Detroit Michigan adopted The Emergency Homeless
Homeless Shelter Licensing ordinance to Shelter
ensure that whenever children, women, and
men become homeless, they will have decent
safe and health refuge. The ordinance provides
the city with tools to regulate and monitor co
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or Homeless Shelter
corporation to operate a Homeless Shelter
within the Town of Phillipsburg, without first
obtaining a license therefore from the Town of
Phillipsburg as hereinafter provided. Licensees
canberevoked.
Licensing is available to eligible sites include Assisted Living
emergency shelters, domestic violence Facilities
shelters, and some transitional housing
providers.
Halfway house must be licensed where Halfway House
required by an appropriate government
agency(ies), and shall be in compliance with
all applicable rules and regulations of the
licensing body(ies). A copy of any required
license must be delivered to the Township prio
The halfway house shall meet any applicable Halfway House
local licensing for a facility housing inmates in
transition from a correctional facility to the
community.
53
 Population Ratios
City Regulations Facility Type Comments
1 Covington, Kentucky One shelter per 25,000 Youth Shelter
persons in the city.

2 No more than one Addiction Treatment Addiction treatment facilities are appropriate if they
addiction treatment facility meet the criteria listed above, unless clear
per 25,000 persons convincing evidence is presented that deleterious
residing in the city. impacts involving noise, traffic, safety, or property
values will result from the establishment of a
shelter at a particular location

3 Green Bay, Wiscounsin Community living Community Living When that capacity is reached, no additional
arrangement shall be community living arrangement shall be permitted
permitted under this within the district until their capacity is reduced or
standard as long as their the district's population increases, thus changing
total capacity within any the ratio.
district that does not
exceed 25 or 1% of the
population of the district,
whichever is greater.
4 Ontario, Canada 82 beds per 100,000 Homeless Shelter
people
5 Cleveland, Ohio Limits halfway houses to Halfway Houses
2 per police district.

6 Rochester, Minnesota The number of OTH uses Offender Transitional

within a radius of 1.5 Housing (OTH)
times the distance
separation may not
exceed 0.5% of the total
number of dwelling units
for developed
neighborhoods within that
radius

54
 Additional Regulations
City Regulations Facility Type Comments
1 Roseville, California The size of the temporary resident shelter shall be in Temporary
character with the surrounding neighborhood. Shelter
2 San Diego, California A loitering control plan to minimize the congregation of Emergency
overnight residents during daylight hours in the vicinity of Center
the shelter and litter control to provide for the removal of
litter in the vicinity of the shelter on a regular basis.

3 Red Bluff, California Lighting shall be provided in all parking, exterior (outside) Emergency
intake and/or waiting areas, outside common areas and Homeless
along the periphery of the building and facility. Shelter

4 Lacey, Washington Because a shelter is a non-traditional living arrangement Homeless

and therefore provides less privacy and more complex Shelter
living arrangements that traditional homes, a distance
requirement that provides visual separation and buffering
from other sensitive land use activities is considered
appropriate.
5 Cleveland, Ohio The rear lot line of the property will have a buffer with Homeless
adequate fencing and barriers in place to screen and Shelter
separate adjoining properties, and to prevent access
between the properties.
6 Des Moines, Iowa If after issuance of the required permit evidence comes to Homeless
the attention of the zoning enforcement officer that Shelter & Group
operation of such facility may be causing unreasonable and Care Facilities
chronic traffic congestion in the streets, unreasonable and
chronic noise in the neighborhood, or danger to the health,
safety and general welfare of its occupants or of occupants
of other property in the neighborhood, the zoning
enforcement officer shall refer the matter to the board of
adjustment. Each such facility shall provide supervision 24
hours a day by persons responsible for the care of the
residents.

7 Des Moines, Iowa Separation, spacing and procedural requirements for Homeless
homeless shelters will be determined by the planning Shelter
commission so as not to adversely impact the surrounding
properties and neighborhood. Unless the commission
determines that a different area is more appropriate, a
neighborhood shall be defined as an area incorporating all
properties lying within one thousand five hundred (1,500)
feet of the site for which the permit is requested.

55
 8 Fairfield, California Shelters must be located in proximity to pblic Homeless
transportation and social service facilties. Shelter

9 Wilmington, Delaware Provides standards for shelters and includes spacing Emergency
requirements. Homeless
Shelter

10 Lacey, Washington Because a shelter is a non-traditional living arrangement Homeless

and therefore provides less privacy and more complex Shelter
living arrangements that traditional homes, a distance
requirement that provides visual separation and buffering
from other sensitive land use activities is considered
appropriate.
11 Cleveland, Ohio Homeless
The rear lot line of the property will have a buffer with Shelter
adequate fencing and barriers in place to screen and
separate adjoining properties, and to prevent access
between the properties.

56
RECOMMENDATION
Public intervention is sometimes necessary to mitigate harmful effects, to protect the public
health and welfare and to achieve a physically and emotionally healthy environment. Certain
Cincinnati neighborhoods require stabilization and revitalization. Other neighborhoods need to
maintain their existing character and quality of life standard. Zoning may only assist in
addressing the impaction issues by decreasing the potential for expansion of existing social
service facilities and redirecting such uses to other neighborhoods that are high poverty and low
service areas. Only limited change will be brought about by a zoning strategy alone. A
comprehensive strategy and many tools will be needed to address the high poverty in Cincinnati.
However, zoning can be one of the tools used to sustain the quality of our neighborhoods and
protect them from deteriorating influences.

Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the attached zoning text amendments based on the following findings:

• The social service facilities and programs should be dispersed in neighborhoods with
high poverty and not concentrated in a few low-income areas based on the theory of
maximizing access for clients. Cincinnati has 33 low-income neighborhoods.
• The community-care concept and the theory of legitimate integration into residential
neighborhoods is defeated by over concentration of facilities in limited areas.
• An over concentration of social service facilities in any given neighborhood could cause
the area to lose it community character and poses a serious threat to neighborhoods
struggling to make a come back.
• Cost effectiveness for social service agencies remains a critical factor but is not the only
or the most important factor in siting decisions.
• The Drop Inn Center data on client zipcodes indicates that at least this one agency is
capturing a much wider, regional clientele than the local population.
• The crime information from the Police Department documents that certain types of social
service facilities generate a high number of CFS.
• The facility site assessments document undesirable behaviors at certain social service
facilities. These behaviors result in negative impacts that worsen the health and safety of
both the homeless and residents, particularly in common areas such as streets, sidewalks,
and parks.
• Zoning cannot regulate behaviors, but it can regulate land uses where these behaviors
occur and their proximity to sensitive other uses such as schools, parks and residential
areas, thereby mitigating offsite impacts.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:

___________________________________ ______________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP Charles C. Graves, III Director,
Chief Planner Dept. of City Planning and Buildings

57
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1400-29 Multiple Uses in Principle

Building.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
multiple uses in a single structure.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1400-29 Multiple Uses in a Structure.

Each use in a multiple use structure must be a permitted use in the zoning district in
which such structure is located.

JUSTIFICATION:

Individuals that work with zoning codes on a daily basis understand that the above
concept is a basic premise of zoning. Accordingly, the Zoning Text Amendment
Committee did not feel that this amendment was necessary. However, individuals that
do not regularly work with zoning codes, feel that this concept must be clearly stated in
the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on the proposed text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ __Did Not Approve

Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning And Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01 Definitions.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
definitions of words and phrases in the Zoning Code.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01. Definitions.
For purposes of the Cincinnati Zoning Code, words and phrases defined in this chapter
have the meanings ascribed to them; additional definitions are in particular chapters of
the Code. Standard dictionary definitions found in the most recent edition of Merriam
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary shall be used for words and phrases that
are not specifically defined in the Zoning Code.

JUSTIFICATION:

To ensure clarity and consistent implementation of the Zoning Code, the Social Service
Committee felt strongly that the above amendment should be included.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on the proposed text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ 8/29/08__________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-C3 Charitable Organization.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
the definition of a “Charitable Organization.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§1401-01-C3 Charitable Organization.

“Charitable organization” means a corporation, trust, community chest, fund, foundation
or other entity organized for scientific, educational, philanthropic, or environmental
purposes, social welfare, the arts and humanities or another civic or public purpose.
This classification includes establishments engaged in the giving of foods, goods,
financial assistance, or grants, or offering services or other socially useful programs on
a benevolent basis for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, and which thereby
lessens the burdens of government.

Re Number §1401-01 C2-C23

JUSTIFICATION:
New definitions have been provided for both “Charitable Organization” and “Nonprofit
Corporation” to ensure that the text amendments are comprehensive in distinguishing
between the services and offices of charitable organizations and the offices and
services of commercial for-profit businesses.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were
received on the proposed text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the City Planning and Buildings Department recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ 8/29/08__________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-C4 Chronically Homeless

Person.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to a
new definition for “Chronically Homeless Person.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-C4. Chronically Homeless Person.
“Chronically homeless person” means, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development 24 C.F.R. §91.5 , an unaccompanied homeless individual with
a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or
has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. To be
considered chronically homeless, a person must have been sleeping in a place not
meant for human habitation (e.g., living on the street) and/or in an emergency shelter
during that time.

Renumber definitions as needed.

JUSTIFICATION:
The new definition for Chronically Homeless Person is required as part of the package
of text amendments related to social services. Specifically this definition is needed for
the supportive housing programs related to the Housing First Model.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. This text amendment was
not reviewed at the public staff conference. It is an additional change based on research
and staff discussion held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that text
amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service
Committee. Instead, it helps to clarify the regulations proposed for supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ __________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-C14 Community Service Facility.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
community service facilities.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-C14. Community Service Facility.

“Community service facility” means a noncommercial facility established primarily for the benefit
and service of the populations of the communities in which they are located, such as YMCA or
YWCA facilities, boys and girls clubs and offices of community councils, non-profit civic,
religious, welfare or philanthropic organizations.

JUSTIFICATION:
The new definition for “Human Service Facility” makes the definition for “Community Service
Facility” unnecessary. YMCAs, YWCAs and boys and girls club would be categorized as Park
and Recreation Facilities as a nonprofit or governmental service. The use classification of
“Community Service Facility” is being entirely deleted from the Zoning Code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. This text amendment was not
reviewed at the public staff conference. It is an additional change based on research and staff
discussion held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that text amendment will
substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ __________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for § §1401-01-C16 Congregate Housing.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
“Congregate Housing.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-C16. Congregate Housing.

“Congregate Housing” means apartments and dwellings with communal dining facilities and
services, such as housekeeping, organized social and recreational activities, transportation
services and other support services appropriate for the residents. Congregate housing does not
include dormitory,sleeping facilities for unrelated individuals.

BACKGROUND:

New State programs were resulting in dormitory-style living quarters being established in
apartments and other facilities for persons released from jail and prison.

JUSTIFICATION:
The definition of “Congregate Housing” is being eliminated because it is no longer needed.
Other definitions, already in the Zoning Code, include: “Assisted “Living, “Shared Housing for
the Elderly”, “Supportive Housing”, “Residential Care Facility”, “Developmental Disability
Dwelling”, “Nursing Home”, “Rooming House”, “Dormitories”, “Fraternities and Sororities”,
“Convents and Monasteries” and “Patients’ Family Home”. The concerns raised previously
concerning new state programs would be addressed by eliminating the category of “Congregate
Housing”.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

These changes were made after the November 12, 2008 public staff conference. It is an
additional change based on research and staff discussion held since the public staff conference.
Staff does not feel that text amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the
Social Service Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

1/24/08, 9/11/08
Margaret A. Wuerstle, AICP, Chief Planner ZTAC
City Planning Department

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-D6 Disabling Condition.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
the definition of “Disabling Condition.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01- D6 Disabling Condition.
“Disabling condition” means as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development 24 C.F.R. §91.5, for the purposes of chronic homelessness, a disabling
condition is a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, serious mental illness,
developmental disability or chronic physical illness or diability, including the co-
occurrence of two or more of these conditions. A disabling condition limits an
individual’s ability to work or perform one or more activities of daily living.

Re- number definitions as needed.

JUSTIFICATION:
The new definition for “Disabling Condition” is required as part of the package of text
amendments related to social services to provide clarity for regulations proposed for the
supportive housing programs related to the Housing First Model.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. This text amendment was
not reviewed at the public staff conference. It is an additional change based on research
and staff discussion held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that text
amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service
Committee. Instead, it helps to clarify the regulations proposed for supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-D7 Dormitory.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to the
definition of “Dormitory.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01- D7 Dormitory.

“Dormitory” means a space in a building where group sleeping accomodations are provided for
persons unrelated to each other by blood, marriage or legal adoption, in one room or in a series
of closely associated rooms with shared facilites such as bathrooms, common eating facilities
and kitchens and are typically used for a college, university, convent or, monastery.

Re-number definition as needed.

JUSTIFICATION:
The Zoning Code currently refers to dormitories but does not provide a definition for the use. At
the public staff conference, a definition was also proposed for “Dormitory, Open Style.” Based
on comments made at the public staff conference and additional research the definitions for
“Dormitory” and “Special Assistance Shelter” were revised and the definition of “Dormitory,
Open Style” was deleted. The revisions to the definition of special assistance shelter make the
definition of dormitory, open style unnecessary.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Several of these individuals in
attendance felt that there was no significant difference between the proposed definitions for
“Dormitory” and “Dormitory, Open Style.”

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-H4 Homeless Person.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to a
new definition for “Homeless Person.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-H4. Homeless Person.

“Homeless person” means, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development 24 C.F.R. §91.5 , a youth (17 years or younger) not accompanied by an
adult (18 years or older) or an adult without children, who is homeless (not imprisoned
or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of Congress or a State law), including the
following:

(1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and
(2) An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
a. A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide
temporary living accomodatings
b. An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended
to be institutionalized; or
c. A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular
sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Renumber definitions as needed.

JUSTIFICATION:
The new definition for “Homeless Person” is required as part of the package of text
amendments related to social services.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. This text amendment was
not reviewed at the public staff conference. It is an additional change based on research
and staff discussion held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that this
text amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service
Committee. Instead, it helps to clarify the regulations proposed for the zoning code.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-H6 Housing First Model.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to a
new definition for “Housing First Model.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-H6. Housing First Model.

“Housing first model” means the provision of housing and optional services to
chronically homeless persons for immediate access to permanent housing, rather than
using the traditional “treatment first” programs requiring that homeless individuals first
abstain from drugs and alcohol or mentally ill individuals first take physician-prescribed
medication .

JUSTIFICATION:
The new definition for “Housing first Model” is required as part of the package of text
amendments related to social services. Specifically this definition is needed for the
supportive housing definition.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. This text amendment was
not reviewed at the public staff conference. It is an additional change based on research
and staff discussions held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that this
text amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service
Committee. Instead, it helps to clarify the regulations proposed for supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning Department and Buildings recommends that
the City Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendments.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ 8/28/08__________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-H7 Human Service Facility.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
the definition of “Human Service Facilities.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-H7. Human Service Facilities.
“Human Service Facility “ means a facility, that is not a Religious Assembly, operated
by a nonprofit, or charitable organization and furnishes services, not including housing,
directed at one or more of the following goals. Human Service facilities do not include
“office facilities” as defined in §1401-01-O Office.

1) Income: achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent,

reduce, or eliminate dependency;
2) Life Skills: achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or
prevention of dependency;
3) Abuse Prevention: preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation
of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving,
rehabilitating or reuniting families;
4) Home-based Care: preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care
by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms
of less intensive care;
5) Assessment and referrals: securing referral or admission for institutional
care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to
individuals in institutions.

JUSTIFICATION:
This definition is based on the Social Security Act and provides consistency between
the City’s Zoning Code and the definitions used by the providers of such services. The
following provides a more detailed explanation of the services included:

1. Income: services that lead to increased economic security such as completing

food stamps applications, or locating, gaining or improving employment, applying
for disability assistance, and budgeting to reduce expenses or expand income.

2. Life skills: services to achieve better personal functioning and improve daily living
skills such as improving interpersonal relationships with others to sustain
employment, arranging child care so parents may go to work or job training,
scheduling and budgeting of time and resources.

3. Abuse prevention: services for adults or children to protect them from abuse or
harm such as child abuse and neglect prevention, and elder abuse prevention.
Also included are services such as rape crisis, battered women’s services,
protective payee programs and guardianship programs, legal services like court
advocacy on abuse cases, assisting elderly with wills, and contracts. Counseling
 is also included for groups or individuals toward preserving families, and reducing
vulnerability to abuse.

4. Home-based care: the goal for these programs is to prevent unnecessary

institutional care, such as hospitals and nursing homes and deliver services in
their homes. This may include visiting nurses, home health care, homemaker
services, home tutoring, perhaps adult day services, meals on wheels, etc. It
usually does not include equipment but it may include helping arrange for
equipment like breathing equipment, wheel chairs, or access ramps to remain at
home.

5. Assessment and referrals: services that provide assessment for admission to

institutional case such as nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, medical or
psychiatric hospitals or treatment programs. Assistance may also include
completing institutional care planning for appropriate return to their own homes
and referral services for social services.

Originally, the definition stated that Human Service Facilities were 25,000 s.f. or less in
size. However, the size regulation was removed from the definition of both Human
Service Multi-Use Centers and Human Service Facility to provide consistency in the
format of the zoning code and to eliminate regulations from the definition of terms. Size
limitations were put on the Human Service Facilities in the use tables.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. The only comments received
related to the proposed text amendment for “Religious Assembly” and how it may
impact the social service programs provided by religious assembly establishments since
human service facilities and religious assembly uses are not permitted in all the same
zoning districts. The comments were not directly related to the definition of human
service facilities but more toward whether both religious assembly and human service
facilities needed to be permitted in a district in order to allow churches to provide social
service programs. Concerns were also raised about the existing churches becoming
nonconforming uses if all of the proposed text amendments were adopted. Finally, the
“Food Distribution” and “Personal Care Services” categories were removed from this
definition because they are covered by other definitions in the code.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ 8/29/08__________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner
APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-H8 Human Service Multi-Use

Center.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
the definition of “Human Service Multi-Use Center.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-H7. Human Service Multi-Use Center.

“Human Service Multi-Use Center” means a facility that is not a Religious Facility
operated by a nonprofit or charitable organization that includes any combination of the
following uses for its residential occupants if any as well as for non-residential
occupants:
1) Human Service facilities
2) Supportive Housing
3) Special Assistance Shelter
4) Medical Services and Clinics
5) Daycare facilities
6) Personal Instructional Services
7) Personal Services
8) Indoor or Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment facilities
9) Soup Kitchen-full service or Soup Kitchen-limited

JUSTIFICATION:
The intention of the Human Service Multi-Use Center definition is to address the large
centers that provide integrated services to their clients. The Social Service Committee
felt that the human service campuses or one-stop centers should be regulated
differently than transitional/supportive housing uses and human service facilities
because these multi-use centers may provide services to on-site residential clients as
well as other individuals that are not using the on-site housing services. These centers
are generally much larger in size and may have greater impacts on neighborhoods.
Originally, the definition stated that Human Service Multi-Use Centers were greater than
25,000 s.f. in size. However, the size regulation was removed from the definition of both
Human Service Multi-Use Centers and Human Service Facility to provide consistency in
the format of the zoning code and to eliminate regulations from the definition of terms.
Limitations were put on the size of Human Service Facilities in the use tables.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on the proposed text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the City Planning and Buildings Department recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-N2 Nonprofit Organization.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments
related to the definition of a “Nonprofit Organization.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§1401-01-N2 Nonprofit Organization
“Nonprofit Organization” means a corporation, agency or other entity that is legally
organized under the laws of the State of Ohio for charitable, educational, religious,
scientific, community development or other socially beneficial purposes..

§ 1401-01-N2.N3. Nursing Home.

“Nursing home” means an institution, residence or facility licensed by the State of Ohio
that provides accommodation, personal assistance and skilled nursing care to more
than three residents who are dependent on the services of others by reason of age and
physical or mental impairment.

JUSTIFICATION:
This definition is needed to distinguish between the services and offices of charitable
organizations and the offices and services of commercial for-profit businesses. This
definition was based on the description in the Ohio Secretary of State Guide to
Nonprofit Organizations in Ohio.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on the proposed text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as proposed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-R7 Religious Assembly.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on a text amendment related to
the definition of “Religious Assembly.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-R7 Religious Assembly.
“Religious assembly” means an establishment a building or structure in which worship,
ceremonies, rituals and education pertaining to a particular system of beliefs are held
and may include rectories and parsonages.for religious worship and other religious
ceremonies, including religious education, rectories and parsonages, offices social
services, columbaria and community programs.

JUSTIFICATION:
Staff proposes that the current definition of Religious Assembly is too broad and that the
definition be amended such that social services are defined as Human Service Facilities
and removed from the definition of Religious Assembly. Also, columbaria are included in
the definition of cemeteries and should be removed from the definition of Religious
Assembly.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) impacts how
municipalities regulate churches and their ministries. This Federal regulation was
enacted to prevent jurisdictions from imposing or implementing a land use regulation in
a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that
imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.
The purpose was to ensure that governmental entities did not impose or implement a
land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.

In the Cincinnati Zoning Code, Religious Assembly is a conditional use in all single
family districts, prohibited in the Manufacturing General, Manufacturing Exclusive and
Parks and Recreation districts and permitted by-right in all other districts. The Human
Service facilities are prohibited in the single-family districts, multi-family districts, the
MA, RF-R, RF-C, RF-M districts, and ME. The current definition of religious assembly is
too broad. Under the existing definition, a social service agency could circumvent the
Zoning Code by declaring it to be a church or a Religious Assembly. The new definition
would not preclude churches from providing social service ministries. However, the
religious worship and ceremonies would be the primary use not the social service
programs.
PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:
A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Objections were made to
the proposed definition at that time because providers felt that most churches have
ministries that include social service programs. The new definition would make the
religious assembly establishments with social service programs nonconforming uses
because “human service facilities” are not permitted in the same districts that religious
assembly uses are permitted. Staff feels that the RLUIPA laws protect religious
assembly establishments along with their ministries. The new language would help
prevent human service facilities from calling their establishment a church in order to
circumvent the zoning regulations.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-S11 Soup Kitchen, full

service and §1401-01S12 Soup Kitchen, Limited.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
the definition of full service and limited service soup kitchens.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§1401-01-S11 Soup Kitchen, full service.

“Soup Kitchen, full service” means any building or structure or portion thereof that
serves food for consumption on-site either without cost or at a subsidized cost.

§1401-01-S12 Soup Kitchen, limited service.

“Soup Kitchen, limited service” means any building or structure or portion thereof that
serves food for consumption off-site either without cost or at a subsidized cost.

Re-number existing §1401-01-S11 through §1401-01-S16

JUSTIFICATION:
Currently, Soup Kitchens are treated as restaurants. This definition is needed to
distinguish between Soup Kitchens and restaurants. Also there are two types of soup
kitchens: those that serve sit-down meals on-site and those that hand out food from a
walk-up window for consumption off site.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. The changes made to these
text amendments are in response to comments received at the public staff conference.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-S11 Special Assistance Shelter.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to special
assistance shelters.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-S1113. Special Assistance Shelter.

“Special assistance shelter” means a facility for the short-term housing that provides overnight
sleeping for individuals who may be homeless and who may require special services but does
not provide 24 hour occupancy or access to the faciltiy. A special assistance shelter is also
known as an “emergency shelter” in the City of Cincinnati Consolidated Plan.

BACKGROUND:
Text amendments to these sections of the Zoning Code were presented to the City Planning
Commission on March 7, 2008 and were approved as recommended at that time. After
consideration, staff determined that any impacts on neighborhoods were caused by the fact that
special assistance shelters do not provide access to the facility on a 24-hour basis. After
spending the night, individuals must leave in the morning.

JUSTIFICATION:
The proposed amendments provide the tools needed by staff to ensure that these facilities are
appropriately located.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

These changes were made after the November 12, 2008 public staff conference. The request
made by the providers to add language on “emergency shelters” so that this definition would be
consistent with the City’s Consolidated Plan has been included.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

9/13/07, 1/24/08, 9/11/08
Margaret A. Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner ZTAC

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401- S17 Supportive Housing.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
supportive housing programs.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1401-01-T.S17. Transitional Supportive Housing.
“Transitional Supportive housing” means housing designed to assist persons in
obtaining skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing, including homes
for adjustment and halfway houses. Transitional Supportive housing is housing in which:

(a) An organization provides a program of therapy, counseling or training for

the residential occupants;

(b) The organization operating the program is licensed or authorized by a

governmental authority having jurisdiction over operation; and

(c) The program is for the purpose of assisting the residential occupants in
one or more of the following types of care:

(1) Protection from abuse and neglect;

(2) Developing skills necessary to adjust to life;

(3) Adjusting to living with the handicaps of physical disability;

(4) Adjusting to living with the handicaps of emotional or mental

disorder or mental retardation;

(5) Recuperation from the effects of drugs or alcohol, even if under

criminal justice supervision; or

(6) Readjusting to society while housed under criminal justice

supervision including, but not limited to, pre-release, work-release
and probationary programs.

(7) Optional services to the chronically homeless based on the

Housing First Model.

Renumber 1401-01 T. Transitional Housing through 1401-01-T3 Two-Family Dwellings

and change all references in the Zoning Code from Tansitional Housing to Supportive
Housing.

JUSTIFICATION:
The title of “Transitional Housing” confuses staff and providers because the providers
deal with both transitional housing, which has a time limit for the occupants, and
permanent supportive housing, which has no time limit. The City’s Zoning Code uses
the term “transitional housing” to address both transitional and permanent supportive
housing. Changing the definition to “Supportive Housing” clarifies that the housing
provides support services but that the City does not distinguish between temporary and
permanent supportive housing.

The Housing First Model takes chronically homeless individuals from shelters and
places them in permanent housing units with optional support services. The individuals
may have drug and/or alcohol issues or they may have a mental illness. This program
meets these individuals “where they are at” and does not require them to be free of
drugs, sober or that they take medications for a mental illness to live in these units.
Programs are provided on-site but the individuals may choose not to use the services.
The addition of §1401-01-S17(c)(7) to the Supportive Housing definition will ensure that
units under the Housing First Model are appropriately located.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. The language proposed in
§1401-01-S17 (c)(7) program has been slightly modified based on research and staff
discussion held since the public staff conference. Staff does not feel that text
amendment will substantially modify the work completed by the Social Service
Committee. Instead, it helps to clarify the regulations proposed for supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1405-05:Use Regulations-Residential

Multi-family Districts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
locating social service facilities in the Residential Multi-family Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1405-05: Use Regulations - Residential Multi-family Districts

Use Classifications RMX RM-2.0 RM-1.2 RM-0.7 Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P P P P See § 1419-09
Child day care home L4 L4 L4 L4
Group residential
Congregate housing -- -- P P
Convents and monasteries P P P P
Fraternities, sororities, dormitories -- -- C P
Patient family homes -- -- P P
Rooming houses -- -- -- L2
Shared housing for the elderly L1 L1 L1 L1
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P P P P See § 1403-11
Attached single-family dwelling L15 P P P See § 1403-11
Rowhouse, single-family dwelling L15 P P P
Two-family dwelling P P P P
Three-family dwelling P P P P
Multi-family dwelling L3 P P P
Residential care facilities
Assisted living C C P P
Developmental disability dwelling P P P P
Nursing home C C P P
Special assistance shelter -- -- -- C See §1419-27
TransitionalSupportive housing
Programs 1-4 -- P P P
Programs 5-6 -- -- -- --
Program 7 -- -- -- C See §1419-28

Public and Semipublic Uses

Clubs and lodges L5 L5 L5 L5
Community service facilities C C C P
Cultural institutions C C C P
Parks and recreation facilities P P P P
Public safety facilities C C P P
Religious assembly P P P P
Schools, public or private P P P P
Human service facilities -- -- -- L6,7 See §1419-18
Commercial Uses
Bed and breakfast inns C C C P See § 1419-09
Business services -- -- -- L6,7
Food markets -- L16 L16 L7
Funeral and interment services -- -- -- L6
Loft dwelling units -- L14 L14 L14 See § 1419-23
Use Classifications RMX RM-2.0 RM-1.2 RM-0.7 Additional Regulations
Medical services and clinics -- -- -- L6,7
Offices -- -- -- L6,7
Parking facilities -- C C C See Chapter 1425
Personal instructional services -- -- -- L6,7
Personal services -- -- -- L6,7
Recreation and entertainment
Indoor or small-scale -- -- -- L6,7
Transportation, Communication and
Utilities
Public utility distribution system C C C C
Transportation facilities
Railroad right-of-way P P P P
Wireless communication antenna L9 L9 L9 L9 See § 1419-33
Wireless communication tower C C C C See § 1419-33
Accessory Uses
Any accessory use not listed below L8 L8 L8 L8
Home occupations P P P P See § 1419-17
Commercial vehicle parking L11 L11 L11 L11
Rooming unit L10 L10 L10 L10
Transitional housing L13 L13 L13 L13
Commercial services P P P P See § 1419-35,
1419-37
Refuse storage areas P P P P See § 1421-35
Drive box L12 L12 L12 L12
Fences and walls P P P P See § 1421-33
Exterior lighting P P P P See § 1421-39
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 The minimum lot area for every resident is 500
square feet and the minimum living area for
every resident is 250 square feet.
L2 Only rooming houses licensed pursuant to
Chapter 855. Rooming Houses of the
Municipal Code; the maximum number of
rooming units is five, and a separate entrance
for access to rooming units must be provided.
The minimum rental is seven days. See §
1421-43.

L3 Multi-family dwellings of four or more units L4 Fencing, a minimum of four feet in height must
must be legally established prior to the be provided for purposes of securing outdoor
effective date of this Zoning Code. The use play areas which must be located in the rear
has the rights of Chapter 1447, Nonconforming yard only.
Uses and Structures except for the provisions
of §1447-09 Expansion of Nonconforming Use
and §1447-11 Substitution of a Nonconforming
Use.

L5 Not to exceed 3,000 square feet in gross floor L6 Permitted only on arterial streets.
area. (*revised 9/12/07 by Ordinance #346-
2007)

L7 Permitted on the ground floor occupying less
than 2,500 sq. ft.; more space requires a
conditional use approval
L8 Accessory uses determined by the Director of
the Department of City Planning and
Inspections to be customarily incidental to a
use of the district are permitted. All others
require conditional use approval.
Specific Limitations

L9 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet; L10 No more than two rooming units may be rented
greater height requires a conditional use or leased in any dwelling.
approval. The antenna may be attached to a
multi-family, public and semi-public or public
utility building or structure.

L11 One commercial vehicle completely enclosed L12 Accessory to a public or semi-public use,
in a garage may be parked or stored on the lot provided the drive box is at least 100 feet from
with the following exceptions: any property used for residential purposes.
a. An unlimited number of commercial
vehicles conveying the necessary tools,
materials and equipment to a premises
where labor using such tools, materials
and equipment is to be performed during
actual time of parking.
b. One commercial vehicle with current
license owned by a resident of the
residential property on which it is stored or
parked not to exceed two tons in capacity.
c. Recreational vehicles, watercraft and
personal trailers may be parked on the lot
beyond the front yard.

L13 Limited to transitional housing conforming to L14 Limited to City Council designated Live/Work
Paragraph 1401-03-T(c)(5) as an accessory Districts
use to public and semi-public uses. The use
requires conditional use approval.

L15 Attached single-family dwellings and rowhouse
single-family dwellings of four or more units
require conditional use approval.
(*revised 7/22/05 by Ordinance #260-2005)
L16 Permitted on the ground floor in multi-family
buildings with a minimum of 50 dwelling units,
occupying 1200 square feet or less of gross
floor area and having a separate exterior
entrance; structures with less than 50 dwelling
units require a conditional use approval; food
markets occupying more than 1200 square feet
of gross floor area require a conditional use
approval.(*revised 9/12/07 by Ordinance #346-
2007)

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities are permitted in the RM-0.7 district with limitations and also
subject to additional regulations. While they are comparable to offices uses, which are
also, permitted in the RM-0.7 districts with limitations, human service facilities have the
potential to create off-site impacts. Therefore, human service facilities are subject to
additional development regulations to ensure that facilities are not concentrated in any
one area and that the providers consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and
develop plans for mitigating any negative impacts.
The districts in which Special Assistance Shelters are located have not been changed.
However, the Special Assistance Shelters are now subject to additional development
regulations that require a 1,000-foot distance separation from another Special
Assistance Shelter. Special assistance shelters also require a 500-foot distance
separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district boundary lines and
Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines, at least 50 square
feet per person in the sleeping facilities, the sleeping facilities are limited to 65
individuals and a “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and the
§1401-01-S17 (c) (7) program has been added to the chart as a conditional use subject
to additional development regulations.

Finally, the “Community Service Facility” and the “Congregate Housing” uses have been
removed since they are no longer needed due to the creation of the new definition for
Human Service Facilities and have been eliminated from the zoning code definitions.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
special assistance shelters and supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1407-05:Use Regulations-Office Districts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to locating
social service facilities in the Office Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1407-05: Use Regulations - Office Districts

Use Classifications OL OG Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P P See § 1419-09
Child day care home L8 L8
Group residential
Congregate housing P P
Convents and monasteries P P
Fraternities and sororities P P
Patient family homes P P
Rooming house -- L7
Shared housing for elderly P P
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P L1
Attached single-family dwelling P L1
Rowhouse, single-family dwelling P --
Two-family dwelling P L1
Multi-family dwelling P L1
Transitional Supportive housing
Programs 1-4 P P
Program 5 -- P
Program 6 -- C
Program 7 -- C See §1419-28
Public and Semipublic Uses
Clubs or lodges L2 P
Colleges, public or private -- C
Cultural institutions P P
Day care center P P
Government facilities and offices
Offices P P
Hospitals -- C
Human service facility L13 L13 See §1419-18
Parks and recreation facilities P P
Public safety facilities P P
Religious assembly P P
Schools, public or private P P
Commercial Uses
Animal services -- P See § 1419-05
Banks and financial institutions P P See § 1419-13
Bed and breakfast inns C C See § 1419-09
Business services P P
Commercial meeting facility L2 P
Eating and drinking establishments
Restaurants, full service -- L4,5 See § 1419-21
Restaurants, limited -- L4,5 See § 1419-21
Food markets L4,5 L4,5
Use Classifications OL OG Additional Regulations
Funeral and interment services P P
Hotels and commercial lodging -- P
Laboratories, commercial C P
Medical services and clinics P P
Offices P P
Parking facilities C C See Chapter 1425
Personal instructional services L3,4 L4
Personal services L3,4 L4
Transportation, Communications and Utilities Uses
Communications facilities -- C
Public utility distribution system C C
Transportation facilities
Heliports -- C
Railroad right-of-way P P
Wireless communication antenna L6 L6 See § 1419-33
Wireless communication tower C C See § 1419-33
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421
Any accessory use not lised below L9 L9
Home occupations P P See § 1419-17
Rooming unit L10 L10
Refuse storage areas P P See § 1421-35
Drive box L11 L11
Fences and walls P P See § 1421-33
Exterior lighting P P See § 1421-39
Small-scale specialized incinerator -- L12
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 For new construction, permitted only above the L2 Not to exceed 3,000 gross square feet in floor
ground floor in mixed-use building on arterial area. (*revised 9/12/07 by Ordinance #346-2007)
streets. Pre-existing permanent residential
uses are permitted.

L3 Permitted only on arterial streets. L4 Permitted on the ground floor occupying less
than 2,500 sq. ft.; more space requires a
conditional use approval.

L5 Drive-through facilities are not permitted.
L6 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet;
greater height requires a conditional use
approval. The antenna may be attached to a
multi-family, public and semi-public,
commercial or public utility building or
structure.

L7 Only rooming houses licensed pursuant to
Chapter 855. Rooming Houses of the Municipal
Code; no more than five rooming units for
every building, and a separate entrance for
access to rooming units must be provided. The
minimum rental is seven days. See § 1421-43.
L8 Fencing, a minimum of four feet in height must
be provided for purposes of securing outdoor
play areas which must be located in the rear
yard only.

L9 Accessory uses determined by the Director of L10 The maximum number of rooming units is two.
the Department of City Planning to be
customarily incidential to a use of the district
are permitted. All others require conditional
Specific Limitations
use approval.

L11 Accessory to a public or semi-public use,
provided the drive box is at least 100 feet from
any property used for residential purposes.
L13 Use limited to 25, 000 sqaure feet; more space
requires conditional use approval.
L12 Accessory to hospitals, medical services,
clinics commercial laboratories and research
and development uses, provided the
incinerator is located on a roof or at least 100
feet from any property used for residential
purposes.

JUSTIFICATION:

Human service facilities limited to 25, 000 square feet are permitted in the OL and OG districts
subject to additional regulations. While they are comparable to offices uses, human service
facilities have the potential to create off-site impacts. Therefore, human service facilities are
subject to additional development regulations to ensure that facilities are not concentrated in
any one area and that the providers consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop
plans for mitigating any negative impacts.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and the§1401-01-
S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart as a conditional use subject to additional
development regulations.

Finally, the “Community Service Facility” and the “Congregate Housing” uses have been
removed since they are no longer needed due to the creation of the new definition for Human
Service Facilities and have been eliminated from the zoning code definitions.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments received
were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities and supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1409-07: Use Regulations-Commercial

Subdistricts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to locating
social service facilities in the Commercial Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1409-07: Use Regulations - Commercial Subdistricts

Additional
Use Classifications CN-P CN-M CC-P CC-M CC-A CG-A Regulations
Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P P P P -- -- See § 1419-09
Child day care home L3 L3 L3 L3 -- --
Group residential
Congregate housing P P P P P P
Convents & monasteries P P P P -- --
Dormitories P P P P P --
Fraternities & sororities P P P P -- --
Patient family homes P P P P -- --
Rooming houses L1 L1 L1 L1 -- --
Shared housing for P P P P -- --
elderly
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P P P L2 L2 --
Attached single-family P P P -- -- --
dwelling
Two-family dwelling P P P L2 L2 --
Multi-family dwelling P P P L2 L2 --
Residential care facilities
Assisted living P P P P P --
Developmental disability P P P L2 L2 --
dwelling
Nursing home P P P P P --
Special assistance shelter C C C C C C See §1419-26
Transitional Supportive
housing
Programs 1-4 P P P L2 L2 --
Program 5 -- -- -- P P P
Program 6 -- -- -- C P P
Program 7 -- -- -- C L14 L14 See §1419-28
Public and Semipublic
Uses
Clubs and lodges P P P P P P
Colleges, public or private -- -- -- C P P

Community service P P P P P P
facilities
Cultural institutions P P P P P P
Day care center P P P P P P
Government facilities and
offices
Offices L13 L13 P P P P
 Additional
Use Classifications CN-P CN-M CC-P CC-M CC-A CG-A Regulations
Hospitals -- -- -- -- -- P
Human Service Facilities L13 L13 L15 L15 P P See §1419-18
Human Service Multi-Use -- -- -- C P P See §1419-19
Center
Park and recreation P P P P P P
facilities
Public maintenance -- -- -- -- C C
facilities
Public safety facilities P P P P P P
Religious assembly P P P P P P
Schools, public or private P P P P P P
Soup Kitchen, Full Service -- -- -- P P P See §1419-26
Soup Kitchen, Limited -- -- -- P P P See §1419-26
Commercial Uses
Ambulance services -- -- -- -- P P
Animal services L4 L4 L4 L4 L9 L9
Banks and financial L13 L13 P P P P
institutions
Bed and breakfast inns P P P P P P
Building maintenance -- -- -- -- P P
services
Building materials sales -- -- -- L5 L5 P
and services
Business services L13 L13 P P P P
Commercial meeting -- -- -- P P P
facility
Eating and drinking
establishments
Drinking establishments L13 L13 P P P P (*Revised 7/22/05
by Ordinance
#236-2005)
Restaurants, full service L6, L13 L6, L13 L6 P P P See § 1419-21
Restaurants, limited L6, L13 L6, L13 L6 P P P See § 1419-21
Food markets L13 L13 P P P P
Food preparation L13 L13 P P P P
Funeral and interment P P P P P P
services
Garden supply stores and -- -- -- L5 L5 P
nurseries
Hotels and commercial -- -- -- P P P
lodging
Laboratories, commercial L13 L13 P P P P
Loft dwelling units P P P P P P See § 1419-23
Maintenance and repair L13 L13 P P P P
services
Medical services and L13 L13 P P P P
clinics
Offices L13 L13 P P P P
Parking facilities C P C P P P See Chapter 1425
Personal instructional L13 L13 P P P P
services
Personal services L13 L13 P P P P
Private vehicular storage -- -- -- -- P P
Lot
Recreation and
Entertainment
Indoor or small-scale L13 L13 P P P P
 Additional
Use Classifications CN-P CN-M CC-P CC-M CC-A CG-A Regulations
Outdoor or large-scale -- -- -- -- C P
Retail sales L13 L13 P P P P
Vehicle and equipment
services
Vehicle and equipment -- -- -- C L8 P
sales and rental
Car wash -- -- -- P P P See § 1419-11
Fuel sales -- P -- P P P See § 1419-15
Vehicle repair -- -- -- C P P See § 1419-27
Industrial Uses
Production Industry
Artisan -- -- -- -- P P
Limited -- -- -- -- P P
Warehousing and storage
Contractor storage -- -- -- -- L5 L5 (revised 1/18/07
by Ordinance #27-
2007)
Indoor storage -- -- -- -- P P
Wholesaling and -- -- -- -- P P
distribution
Transportation,
Communication and
Utilities Uses
Communications facilities P P P P P P
Public utility distribution P P P P P P
system
Radio and television -- -- -- -- C C (*Revised 4/19/06
broadcast antenna Ordinance #0098-
2006)
Transportation facilities
Heliports -- -- -- -- C C
Railroad right-of-way P P P P P P
Transportation -- -- -- -- P P
passenger terminals
Wireless communication L7 L7 L7 L7 L7 L7 See § 1419-33
antenna
Wireless communication C C C C C C See § 1419-33
tower
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421
Any accessory use not L10 L10 L10 L10 L10 L10
listed below
Refuse storage areas P P P P P P See § 1421-35
Drive box L11 L11 L11 L11 L11 L11
Commercial Vehicle P P P P P P
Parking
Exterior Lighting P P P P P P See § 1421-39
Small-scale specialized L12 L12 L12 L12 L12 L12
incinerator
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 Only rooming houses licensed pursuant to L2 Permitted only above the ground floor in a
Chapter 855. Rooming Houses of the Municipal mixed use building.
Code; the maximum number of rooming units is
five, and a separate entrance for access to
rooming units must be provided. The minimum
rental is seven days. See § 1421-43.
L3 Fencing, a minimum of four feet in height must L4 Permitted, provided that there are no outdoor
be provided for purposes of securing outdoor exercise areas, yards or pens and mechanical
play areas which must be located in the rear ventilation and air filter devices must be
yard only. provided.

L5 Permitted provided outdoor storage is L6 Presentation of entertainment is not permitted

screened with an 8 ft. privacy fence(*revised in outdoor areas.
1/18/07 by Ordinance #27-2007).

L7 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet; L8 Permitted on arterial streets with a maximum
greater height required a conditional use site size of two acres. Vehicle loading and
approval. The antenna may be attached to a unloading must occur on-site.
multi-family, public and semi-public,
commercial or public utility building or
structure.

L9 Outdoor exercise areas, yards or pens must be
100 feet from any residential district.
L10 Accessory uses determined by the Director of
the Department of City Planning to be
customarily incidental to a use of the district
are permitted except where expressly
prohibited. All others require conditional use
approval.(*revised 6/22/05)

L11 The storage space is less than 30 cubic yards;
enclosed by a screen fence or within a
structure; and at least 100 feet from any
property used for residential purposes.
L13 Use is limited to 15,000 square feet; more
space requires conditional use approval
L15 Use limited to 25, 000 sqaure feet; more space
requires conditional use approval.
L12 The material incinerated is generated on-site
and is located on a roof or at least 100 feet
from any property used for residential
purposes.
L14 Programs may not exceed 30 resident
Occupants.

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities are permitted in the CN districts subject to limitations and additional
regulations. While they are comparable to offices uses and have the same limitation as an office
use, human service facilities have the potential to create off-site impacts. Therefore, human
service facilities are subject to additional development regulations to ensure that facilities are
not concentrated in any one area that the providers consider potential impacts on
neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any negative impacts. The additional
regulations require human service facilities to provide a 500-foot distance separation between
human service facilities, buffering from single-family residential districts and a “good neighbor”
plan.

Human Service Multi-Use Centers have been conditionally permitted in the CC-M district and
permitted by-right in the CC-A and CG-A subject to additional development regulations that
require a 1,000-foot distance separation from another Human Service Multi-Use Facility, a 500-
foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district boundary lines and
Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines and a “good neighbor” plan.

The districts in which Special Assistance Shelters are located have not been changed.
However, the Special Assistance Shelters are now subject to additional development
regulations that require:
 • A 1,000-foot distance separation from another Special Assistance Shelter.
• A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district
boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines,
• At least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities,
• The sleeping facilities are limited to 65 individuals, and
• A “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and §1401-01-
S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart as a conditional use in the CC-M district and a
limited use in the CC-A and CG-A districts. The §1401-01-S17(c)(7) program is also subject to
additional development regulations.

Soup kitchens, both full and limited service, have been permitted by-right in the CC-M, CC-A
and CG-A districts subject to additional development regulations that require a 1,000-foot
distance separation between Soup Kitchens providing concurrent operating hours and buffer
yards where the side or rear of the use abuts a single-family residential district.

Finally, the “Community Service Facility” and the “Congregate Housing” uses have been
removed since they are no longer needed due to the creation of the new definition for Human
Service Facilities and have been eliminated from the zoning code definitions.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments received
were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities, human service multi-
use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and supportive housing. The human
service providers do not agree with a 500-foot separation between social service facilities and
schools and residential district boundary lines because it significantly decreases the amount and
location of available property. It also limits the ability of the clients utilizing these services to live
in a residential neighborhood. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or
negatively impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and the
providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buiuldings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1410-05: Use Regulations-Urban Mix

District.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments
related to locating social service facilities in the Urban Mix District.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1410-05: Use Regulations – Urban Mix District

Use Classifications UM Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P See § 1419-09
Child day care home L2
Group residential
Group Residential

Congregate housing P
Convents and monasteries L7
Fraternities, sororities, dormitories L7
Patient family homes L7
Rooming houses L1
Shared housing for the elderly L7

Single-family dwelling P See § 1403-11

Residential
Permanent

Attached single-family dwelling P See § 1403-11

Rowhouse, single-family dwelling P
Two-family dwelling P
Multi-family dwelling P
Assisted living P
Residential

Facilities
Care

Developmental disability dwelling P

Nursing home P

Special Assistance Shelter C See §1419-27

Programs 1-4
Transitional

P
Supportive
Housing

Program 5, 6 --

Program 7 --

Public and Semipublic Uses

Clubs and lodges P
Colleges, Public or Private P
Community service facilities C
Cultural institutions P
Day Care Center P
Offices P
and Offices
Government
Facilities

Hospitals P
Human service facilities C See §1419-18
Parks and recreation facilities P
Public maintenance Facilities C
Public safety facilities P
Religious assembly P
Schools, public or private P
Commercial Uses
Ambulance Services C
Animal Services C See § 1419-05
Banks and Financial Institutions L9 See § 1419-13
ATM, Stand Alone C
Bed and breakfast inns P See § 1419-09
Building maintenance services P
Building material sales & services L3
Business services P
Commercial meeting facilities C
Drinking establishments P See § 1419-21
Eating and Drinking
Establishments

Restaurants, Full Service L9 See § 1419-21

Restaurants, Limited Service L9 See § 1419-21

Food markets L9
Food preparation P
Funeral and interment services P
Garden supply stores & nurseries C
Hotels & commercial lodging P
Laboratories, commercial L6
Loft dwelling units P See § 1419-23
Maintenance & repair services P
Medical services and clinics P
Offices P
Parking facilities C See § 1425, § 1411-25
Personal instructional services P
Personal services P
Indoor or small scale P
Recreation and
Entertainment Outdoor or large scale C

Retail sales L6
Vehicle & Equipment Services L10
Car wash L10 See § 1419-11
Vehicle repair L11 See § 1419-27
Industrial Uses
Production industry
Artisan P
General C
Limited P
Research & development C
Warehouse

Contractor's storage L3
& Storage

Indoor storage P
Wholesale & distribution C
Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Communications facilities C
Public utility distribution system L12
Transportation

Heliports C
Facilities

Railroad right-of-way P
Transportation passenger terminals C

Wireless communication antenna L4 See § 1419-33

Wireless communication tower C See § 1419-33
Accessory Uses
Any accessory use not listed below L5
Commercial services P See § 1419-35, 37
Commercial vehicle parking P
Drive box L13
Exterior lighting P See § 1421-39
Fences and walls P See § 1421-33
Home occupations P See § 1419-17
Refuse storage areas P See § 1421-35
Rooming unit L8
Small scale specialized incinerator --
Transitional Housing --
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447
Specific Limitations

L1 Only rooming houses licensed pursuant to L2 Fencing, a minimum of four feet in height must
Chapter 855. Rooming Houses of the Municipal beprovided for purposes of securing outdoor
Code; the maximum number of rooming units is play areas which much be located in the rear.
five, and a separate entrance for access to
rooming units must be provided. The minimum
rental is seven days. See § 1421-43.

L3 Permitted provided outdoor storage is
screened so as not to be visible from adjacent
streets.
L4 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet;
greater height requires a conditional use
approval. The antenna may be attached to a
multi-family, public and semi-public, public
utility,a commercial or industrial building or
structure.

L5 Accessory uses determined by the Director of L6 Use is limited to 15,000 square feet; more
the Department of City Planning to be space requires conditional use approval.
customarily incidental to a use of the district
are permitted. All others require conditional use
approval.

L7 A separate entrance for access to rooming L8 No more than two roming units may be rented
units must be provided in a mixed-use building. or leased in any dwelling.

L9 Drive through facilities are not permitted. L10 Permitted as an accessory use located within a
parking garage

L11 Permitted within a fully enclosed structure. L12 The facility must be underground, within a
building or on the roof within an enclosure.

L13 Accessory to a public or semi public use

provided that the drivebox is at least 100 feet
from any property used for residential
purposes.

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities are conditionally permitted in the UM districts subject to
additional regulations. Human service facilities have the potential to create off-site
impacts. Therefore, human service facilities are subject to additional development
regulations to ensure that facilities are not concentrated in any one area, that the
providers consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating
any negative impacts.

The districts in which Special Assistance Shelters are located have not been changed.
However, the Special Assistance Shelters are now subject to additional development
regulations that require:

• A 1,000-foot distance separation from another Special Assistance Shelter.

 • A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential
district boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district
boundary lines,
• At least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities,
• The sleeping facilities are limited to 65 individuals. and
• A “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and §1401-
01-S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart and is not a permitted use in the UM
district.

Finally, the “Community Service Facility” and the “Congregate Housing” uses have been
removed since they are no longer needed due to the creation of the new definition for
Human Service Facilities and have been eliminated from the zoning code definitions.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities, and
supportive housing. The human service providers do not agree with a 500-foot
separation between social service facilities and schools and residential district boundary
lines because it significantly decreases the amount and location of available property. It
also limits the ability of the clients utilizing these services to live in a residential
neighborhood. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively
impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and
the providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1411-05: Use Regulations-Downtown

Development Subdistricts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to locating
social service facilities in the Downtown Development Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1411-05: Use Regulations–Downtown Development Use Subdistricts

Use Classifications DD-A DD-B DD-C DD-D Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P P P P See § 1419-09
Child day care home L12 L12 L12 L12
Group residential
Convents and monastaries L1 L1 L1 L1
Fraternities and sororities L1 L1 L1 L1
Patient family homes L1 L1 L1 L1
Rooming houses L2 L2 L2 L2
Shared housing for elderly L1 L1 L1 L1
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P P P P
Attached single-family P P P P
dwelling
Single-family rowhouse P P P P
Multi-family dwelling P P P P
Two-family dwelling P P P P
Residential care facilities
Assisted living -- P P --
Developmental disability P P P P
dwelling
Nursing home -- P P --
Special assistance shelter C C C C See §1419-27
Transitional Supportive housing
Programs 1-5 P P P P
Program 6 L11 L11 L11 L11
Program 7 C C C C See §1419-28
Public and Semipublic Uses
Clubs and lodges P P P P
Colleges, public or private P P P P
Community service facilities P P P P
Cultural institutions P P P P
Day care center P P P P
Government facilities and
offices
Correctional institutions -- -- C --
Offices P P P P
Hospitals P P P P
Human service facilities L14 L14 L14 L14 See §1419-18
Human service multi-use center C C C C See §1419-19
Park and recreation facilities P P P P
Public maintenance facility -- P P P
Public safety facilities P P P P
Religious assembly P P P P
Schools, public or private P P P P
Use Classifications DD-A DD-B DD-C DD-D Additional Regulations
Soup kitchen, full service C C C C See §1419-26
Soup kitchen, limited service C C C C See §1419-26
Commercial Uses
Animal services -- C C --
Banks and financial institutions L3 L3 L3 L3
ATM, stand-alone -- -- C C See § 1419-07
Bed and breakfast inns P P P P See § 1419-09
Building maintenance services -- -- P --
Business services P P P P
Commercial meeting facilities L4 L4 L4 L4
Eating and drinking
establishments
Drinking establishments P P P P
Restaurants, full service L3 L3 L3 L3 See § 1419-21
Restaurants, limited L3 L3 L3 L3 See § 1419-21
Food markets L3 L3 L3 L3
Food preparation P P P P
Funeral and interment services -- -- P --
Hotels and commercial lodging P P -- P
Laboratories, commercial L4 -- L4 L4
Loft dwelling units P P P P See § 1419-23
Maintenance and repair P P P P
services
Medical services and clinics L4 P L4 L4
Offices L4 P L4 L4
Parking facilities L13 L13 L13 L13 See § 1411-25
Personal instructional services L5 L5 P L5
Personal services P L6 P P
Recreation and entertainment
Indoor or small-scale L5 L5 P L5
Outdoor or large-scale C -- C C
Retail sales P L6 P P
Vehicle and equipment
services
Vehicle and equipment sales L7 -- L7 --
and rental
Car wash L7 L7 L7 L7 See § 1419-11
Vehicle repair -- -- L8 -- See § 1419-27
Industrial Uses
Production industry
Artisan -- -- P P
Limited -- -- P --
Research and development -- -- C --
Warehousing and storage
Indoor storage -- -- P --
Wholesaling and distribution -- -- P --
Transportation, Communication and
Utilities
Communications facilities P -- P P
Public utility distribution L9 L9 L9 L9
system
Public utility maintenance yard -- -- C --
Public utility plant C -- C --
Transportation facilities
Heliports C -- C C
Transportation passenger C C C C
terminals
Watercraft and riverfront
Use Classifications DD-A DD-B DD-C DD-D Additional Regulations
facilities
Commercial piers and ports -- -- -- P
Marinas -- -- -- P
Wireless communication L10 L10 L10 L10 See § 1419-33
antenna
Wireless communication tower C C C -- See § 1419-33
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 A separate entrance for access to rooming
units must be provided in a mixed-use building.
L2 Only rooming houses licensed pursuant to
Chapter 855, Rooming Houses of the
Municipal Code are allowed. A separate
entrance for access to rooming units must be
provided. The minimum rental is seven days.
See § 1421-23.

L3 Drive-through facilities are not permitted. L4 Not permitted as a principal ground floor use in
locations indicated on Map 1411-17:
Commercial Continuity Overlay.

L5 Permitted only above the ground floor in a L6 Permitted on the ground floor only.
mixed-use building.

L7 Permitted as a secondary use located within a L8 Permitted only if the entire use and storage is
parking garage. within an enclosed structure.

L9 The facility must be underground, within a
building or on the roof within an enclosure.
L10 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet;
greater height requires a conditional use
approval. The antenna may be attached to a
multi-family, public and semi-public, public
utility, commercial or industrial building or
structure.

L11 Programs may not exceed 50 resident L12 Fencing must be provided for purposes of
occupants. securing outdoor play areas which must be
located in the rear yard only.
L14 Use limited to 25, 000 sqaure feet; more space
L13 See 1411-25. requires conditional use approval.

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities limited to 25,000 square feet are permitted in the DD districts subject to
additional regulations. While they are comparable to offices uses, human service facilities have
the potential to create off-site impacts. Therefore, human service facilities are subject to
additional development regulations to ensure that facilities are not concentrated in any one
area, that the providers consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for
mitigating any negative impacts. The additional regulations require a 500-foot distance
separation between human service facilities, buffering from single-family residential districts and
a “good neighbor” plan.

Human Service Multi-Use Centers have been conditionally permitted in the DD districts subject
to additional development regulations that require a 1,000-foot distance separation from another
Human Service Multi-Use Facility, a 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family
(SF) Residential district boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district
boundary lines and a “good neighbor” plan.

The districts in which Special Assistance Shelters are located have not been changed.
However, the Special Assistance Shelters are now subject to additional development
regulations that require:

• A 1000-foot distance separation from another Special Assistance Shelter.

• A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district
boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines,
• At least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities,
• The sleeping facilities are limited to 65 individuals, and
• A “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and §1401-01-
S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart as a conditional use in the CC-M district and a
limited use in the CC-A and CG-A districts. The §1401-01-S17(c)(7) program is also subject to
additional development regulations.

Soup kitchens, both full and limited service, have been conditionally permitted in the DD districts
subject to additional development regulations that require a 1000-foot distance separation
between Soup Kitchens providing concurrent operating hours and buffer yards where the side or
rear of the use abuts a single-family residential district.

Finally, the Community Service facility use has been removed since it is no longer needed due
to the creation of the new definition for Human Service Facilities.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments received
were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities, human service multi-
use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and supportive housing. The human
service providers do not agree with a 500-foot separation between social service facilities and
schools and residential district boundary lines because it significantly decreases the amount and
location of available property. It also limits the ability of the clients utilizing these services to live
in a residential neighborhood. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or
negatively impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and the
providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §14013-05: Use Regulations-

Manufacturing Districts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
locating social service facilities in the Manufacturing Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1413-05: Use Regulations – Manufacturing Districts (*revised 2/13/08 by
Ordinance No. 60-2008)

Additional
Use Classifications MA ML MG ME Regulations
Residential Uses
Child day care home L9 L9 -- --
Group residential -- --
Convents and monasteries -- L1 -- --
Fraternaties and sororities -- L1 -- --
Patient family homes -- L1 -- --
Rooming homes -- L1 -- --
Shared Housing for the Elderly P L1 -- --
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P L1 -- --
Attached single-family dwelling P L1 -- -- See §1403-13
Two-family dwelling -- L1 -- --
Multi-family dwelling -- L1 -- --
Residential care facilities
Developmental disability dwelling P P -- --
Special assistance shelter -- C -- -- See §1419-27
TransitionalSupportive housing --
Programs 1 - 4 -- P P --
Programs 5, 6 -- -- P --
Program 7 -- C -- -- See §1419-28
Public and Semipublic Uses
Community service facilities P P -- --
Day care center P P L3 --
Government facilities and offices
Correctional Institutions -- -- C --
Facilities and installations -- -- C --
Juvenile detention facilities -- -- C --
Offices P P P --
Human service facilites -- C C -- See §1419-18
Human service multi-use center -- -- C -- See §1419-19
Park and recreation facilities P P -- --
Public maintenance facilities -- P P --
Public safety facilities C P P P
Religious assembly P P -- --
Schools, public or private P P -- --
Soup kitchen, full service -- -- -- --
Soup kitchen , limited service -- -- -- --
Commercial Uses
Ambulance services -- P P --
Animal services -- P P --
Banks and financial institutions -- P P --
 Additional
Use Classifications MA ML MG ME Regulations
Building maintenance services -- P P --
Building materials sales and --
P P P
services
Business services -- P P --
Eating and drinking establishments --
Drinking establishments -- P P --
Restaurants, full service -- P P -- See § 1419-21
Restaurants, limited -- P P -- See § 1419-21
Food markets -- L5 L5 --
Food preparation P P P --
Garden supply stores and L17
P -- --
nurseries
Laboratories, commercial -- P P --
Loft dwelling units P P P -- See § 1419-23
Maintenance and repair services P P P --
Medical services and clinics -- P P --
Offices P P P P
Parking facilities -- P P C See Chapter 1425
Personal instructional services P P P --
Personal services -- L5 L5 --
Private vehicular storage lot -- -- P --
Recreation and entertainment
Indoor or small-scale -- P P --
Outdoor or large-scale -- C -- --
Retail sales -- L5 L5 --
Sexually oriented business -- -- P -- See § 1419-25
Vehicle and equipment services --
Vehicle and equipment sales and --
L2 L2 --
rental
Car wash -- L3 P -- See § 1419-11
Fuel sales -- L3 P -- See § 1419-15
Vehicle repair -- -- P -- See § 1419-27
Automobile holding facility -- -- L4 --
Industrial Uses
Production industry
Artisan P P P P
General -- -- P P
Intensive high-impact -- -- C C See § 1419-19
Limited P P P P
Research and development P P P --
Warehousing and storage --
Contractor’s storage -- C P --
Indoor storage -- P P --
Oil and gas storage -- -- C C
Outdoor storage -- -- C C
Metal waste salvage yard/junk --
-- C C
yards
Waste management --
Waste collection -- P P P See § 1419-31
Waste disposal -- -- C C
Waste transfer -- -- C C See § 1419-31
Wholesaling and distribution P P P P
Transportation, Communication
and Utilities
Communications facilities P P P --
Public utility distribution system -- P P P
Public utility maintenance yard -- P P P
 Additional
Use Classifications MA ML MG ME Regulations
Public utility plant -- C P P
Radio and television broadcast --
P P --
antenna
Transportation facilities --
Airports -- L6 -- --
Heliports -- L6 L6 L6
Railroad train yards -- L7 L7 L7
Railroad right-of-way -- P P P
Transportation passenger --
P P P
terminals
Truck terminal and warehouse -- -- L7 L7
Wireless communication antenna L13 L8 L8 L8
Wireless communication tower -- C C C
Agriculture and Extractive Uses
Farming P -- -- -- See §1419-38
Mining and quarrying -- -- C C
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421
Any accessory use not listed below L10 L10 L10 L10
Refuse storage area L12 L12 L12 L12 See § 1421-35
Drive box L11 L11 L11 L11
Commercial vehicle parking L14 P P P
Exterior lighting P P P P See § 1421-39
Composting Facilities P -- -- -- See §1421-37
Home occupation P -- -- -- See §1419-17
Rooming unit L15 -- -- --
Retail Sales L16 -- -- --
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 New residential is permitted only when L2 Permitted on arterial street only. Vehicle loading
abutting an existing residential use or and unloading must occur on-site.
structure.

L3 Permitted only as an accessory use to a use
allowed in the district.
L4 The facility must be completely enclosed on all
sides with a six foot screen fence which is
protected from damage by a guardrail or other
barriers approved by the Director of the
Department of City Planning. Must be located
at least 100 feet from a residential district.

L5 Permitted only if occupying less than 5,000 L6 Landing strip, pad, or apron may not be located
sq. ft. in ML and 10,000 sq. ft. in MG. within 500 ft. of a residential district boundary.

L7 Not allowed within 250 ft. of a residential use
in a Residential District.
L8 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet; greater
height requires a conditional use approval. The
antenna may be attached to a multi-family,
public or semi-public, public utility, a
commercial or industrial building or structure.

L9 Fencing a minimum of four feet in height must
be provided for purposes of securing outdoor
play areas which must be located in the rear
yard only.
L10 Accessory uses determined by the Director of
the Department of City Planning to be
customarily incidental to a use of the district are
permitted. All others require conditional use
approval.
Specific Limitations

L11 The storage space is less than 30 cubic
yards; enclosed by a screen fence or within a
structure; and at least 100 feet from any
property used for residential purposes.
L13 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet;
greater height requires a conditional use
approval. The antenna may be attached to
an agricultural, public or semi-public or public
utility building or structure.
L15 No more than two rooming units may be
rented or leased in a single-family dwelling.
L17 Permitted only if occupying no more than
5,000 square feet in the MA
L12 Provisions of § 1421-35 apply when refuse
storage area is within 100 feet of any property
used for residential purposes.
L14 One commercial vehicle may be parked or
stored on residential property with the following
conditions:
a. Commercial vehicles with current license owned
by a resident of the residential property on which it is
stored or parked may not exceed two tons in
capacity.
b. Recreational vehicles, watercraft and personal
trailers may be parked on the lot beyond the front
yard.
L16 Retail sales of products manufactured or
wholesaled on the premises, when incidental and
subordinate to a principal permitted use, provided
that the floor area devoted to such retailing shall not
exceed 35 percent of the floor area devoted to such
principal use, but in no case shall the retail floor
area exceed 5,000 square feet.

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities are conditionally permitted in the ML and MG districts subject to
additional regulations. While they are comparable to offices uses, human service
facilities have the potential to create off-site impacts. Therefore, human service facilities
are subject to additional development regulations to ensure that facilities are not
concentrated in any one area that the providers consider potential impacts on
neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any negative impacts. The additional
regulations require a 500-foot distance separation between human service facilities,
buffering from single-family residential districts and a “good neighbor” plan.

Human Service Multi-Use Centers have been conditionally permitted in the MG district
subject to additional development regulations that require a 1,000-foot distance
separation from another Human Service Multi-Use Facility, a 500-foot distance
separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district boundary lines and
Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines and a “good neighbor”
plan.

The districts in which Special Assistance Shelters are located have not been changed.
However, the Special Assistance Shelters are now subject to additional development
regulations that require:

• A 1000-foot distance separation from another Special Assistance Shelter,

• A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential

district boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district
boundary lines,

• At least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities,

 • The sleeping facilities are limited to 65 individuals, and

• A “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and §1401-
01-S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart as a conditional use in the ML
district. The (c)7 program is also subject to additional development regulations that
require a 1,000-foot distance separation from another §1401-01-S17(c)(7) Supportive
Housing facility, a 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF)
Residential district boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R)
district boundary lines, at least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities and a
“good neighbor “plan.

Soup kitchens, both full and limited service, have not been permitted in any of the
manufacturing districts.

Finally, the Community Service facility use has been removed since it is no longer
needed due to the creation of the new definition for Human Service Facilities.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
human service multi-use centers, special assistance shelters and supportive housing.
The human service providers do not agree with a 500-foot separation between social
service facilities and schools and residential district boundary lines because it
significantly decreases the amount and location of available property. It also limits the
ability of the clients utilizing these services to live in a residential neighborhood. Social
service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively impact the quality of life in
residential areas. The intent and mission of social service providers is to improve the
lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and the providers felt that
negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1415-05: Use Regulations-Riverfront

Districts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
locating social service facilities in the Riverfront Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1415-05: Use Regulations – Riverfront Districts

Use Classifications RF-R RF-C RF-M Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P -- -- See § 1419-09
Child day care home L8 -- --
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P -- --
Attached single-family dwelling P -- --
Rowhouse single-family dwelling P -- --
Two-family dwelling P -- --
Multi-family dwelling P -- --
Public and Semipublic Uses
Community service facilities P -- --
Cultural institutions P P --
Day care centers P P --
Government facilities and offices
Facilities and installations -- C C
Offices P P --
Parks and recreation facilities P -- --
Public maintenance facilities C P --
Public safety facilities P P P
Religious assembly P P P
Schools, public and private P -- --
Commercial Uses
Bed and breakfast inns P -- -- See § 1419-09
Eating and drinking establishments
Drinking establishments L1,2,3 L2,3 --
Restaurants, full service L1,2,3 L2,3 -- See § 1419-21
Restaurants, limited L1,2,3 L2,3 -- See § 1419-21
Garden supply stores and plant
P -- --
nurseries
Hotels and commercial lodging L3 L3 --
Recreation and entertainment
Outdoor or large-scale P -- --
Industrial Uses
Production industry
General -- L4,6 L4,7
Intensive high-impact -- -- L4,7 See § 1419-19
Limited -- L4,6 L4,7
Metal waste salvage yard/junk yards -- -- C
Wholesaling and distribution -- L4 L4
Transportation, Communications and
Utilities Uses
Public utility distribution system P P P
Public utility plant -- P P
Use Classifications RF-R RF-C RF-M Additional Regulations
Transportation facilities
Railroad right-of-way P P P
Railroad train yards -- L9 L9
Transportation passenger terminals P P P
Watercraft and riverfront facilities
Barge terminals -- L6 L7
Boat and ship yards L6 L6 P
Commercial piers and ports -- P --
Marinas P P --
Marine sales and services -- P --
Wireless communication antenna L5 L5 L5 See § 1419-33
Wireless communication tower C C C See § 1419-33
Agriculture and Extractive Uses
Farming P -- --
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421
Any accessory use not listed below L10 L10 L10
Home occupation P -- -- See § 1419-17
Laundries and commissaries L11 L11 --
Refuse storage areas L15 L15 L15 See § 1421-35
Drive box L12 -- --
Exterior lighting P P P See § 1421-39
Outside equipment storage areas C -- --
Office uses -- L13 L13
Retail and repair -- L14 --
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 Outdoor eating and drinking areas require a L2 Drive-through facilities are prohibited.
conditional use approval. Presentation of
entertainment is not permitted in such areas.

L3 Permitted in marinas and boatyards otherwise L4 Use requires direct access to barge facilities
a conditional use approval is required.

L5 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet; L6 All storage to be in completely enclosed
greater height requires a conditional use facilities.
approval. The antenna may be attached to an
agricultural, multi-family, public or semi-public,
public utility, commercial or industrial building
or structure.

L7 Outdoor storage of chemicals, minerals and L8 Fencing must be provided for purposes of
aggregate requires a conditional use approval. securing outdoor play areas which must be
located in the rear yard only.

L9 Not allowed within 250 feet of a residential
use in a Residential District.
L10 Accessory uses determined by the Director of
the Department of City Planning to be
customarily incidental to a use of the district
are permitted. All others require conditional
use approval.

L11 Accessory to a marina. L12 Accessory to a public or semi-public use,

provided the drive box is at least 100 feet from
any property used for residential purposes and
is outside the 100-year floodplain.
Specific Limitations

L13 Accessory to a permitted or conditional use but L14 Retail sales or repair of products incidental to
may not exceed 20,000 square feet of gross the industrial uses of the district but may not
floor area.(*revised 9/12/07 by Ordinance exceed 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
#346-2007) (*revised 9/12/07 by Ordinance #346-2007)

L15 Provisions of § 1421-35 apply when refuse

storage area is within 100 feet of any property
used for residential purposes.

JUSTIFICATION:
The Community Service facility use has been removed since it is no longer needed due
to the creation of the new definition for Human Service Facilities.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on this text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1417-03: Use Regulations-

Institutional-Residential Districts.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
locating social service facilities in the Institutional-Residential Districts.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

Schedule 1417-03: Use Regulations – Institutional-Residential Districts

Use Classifications IR Additional Regulations

Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home P See § 1419-09
Child day care home L6
Group residential P
Permanent residential
Single-family dwelling P
Attached single-family dwelling P
Two-family dwelling P
Multi-family dwelling P
Residential care facilities
Assisted living P
Developmental disability dwelling P
Nursing home P
TransitionalSupportive housing
Programs 1-4 P
Programs 5,6 C
Program 7 --
Public and Semipublic Uses
Colleges, public or private P See § 1417-05
Community service facilities P
Cultural institutions P
Day care center P
Government facilities and offices
Offices P
Hospitals P See § 1417-05
Human service facilties P See §1419-18
Human service multi-use center P See §1419-19
Park and recreation facilities P
Public safety facilities P
Religious assembly P
Schools, public or private P See § 1417-05
Soup kitchen , full service --
Soup kitchen, limited service --
Commercial Uses
Laboratories, commercial P See § 1417-05
Medical services and clinics P
Offices P
Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Communications facilities P
Public utility distribution system C
Transportation facilities
Heliports C
Transportation passenger terminals P
Use Classifications IR Additional Regulations
Wireless communication antenna L1 See § 1419-33
Wireless communication tower C See § 1419-33
Accessory Uses See Chapter 1421 and § 1417-05
Any accessory use not listed below L2
Drive box L5
Home occupations P See § 1419-17
Refuse storage area L4 See § 1421-35
Rooming unit L3
Exterior lighting P See § 1421-39
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 1447

Specific Limitations
L1 Antenna height may not exceed 20 feet;
greater height requires a conditional use
approval. The antenna may be attached to
multi-family, public or semi-public, public utility
or commercial building or structure.
L2 Accessory uses determined by the Director of
the Department of City Planning to be
customarily incidental to a use of the district
other than those specified in § 1417-05 are
permitted. All others require conditional use
approval.

L3 The maximum number of rooming units is two. L4 Provisions of § 1421-35 apply when refuse
storage area is within 100 feet of any property
used for residential purposes.

L5 The storage space is less than 30 cubic yards; L6 Fencing, a minimum of four feet in height must
enclosed by a screen fence or within a be provided for purposes of securing outdoor
structure; and at least 100 feet from any play areas which must be located in the rear
property used for residential purposes. yard only.

JUSTIFICATION:
Human service facilities are permitted in the IR district subject to additional regulations.
While they are comparable to offices uses, human service facilities have the potential to
create off-site impacts. Therefore, human service facilities are subject to additional
development regulations to ensure that facilities are not concentrated in any one area,
that the providers consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for
mitigating any negative impacts. The additional regulations which require a 500-foot
distance separation between human service facilities, buffering from single-family
residential districts and a “good neighbor” plan.

Human Service Multi-Use Centers have been permitted in the IR districts subject to
additional development regulations that require a 1,000-foot distance separation from
another Human Service Multi-Use Center, a 500-foot distance separation from schools,
Single-Family (SF) Residential district boundary lines and Riverfront
Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines and a “good neighbor” plan.

The term “Transitional Housing” has been changed to “Supportive Housing” and the
§1401-01-S17(c)(7) program has been added to the chart as a prohibited use in the IR
district.

Soup kitchens, both full and limited service, are prohibited in the DD districts.

Finally, the Community Service facility use has been removed since it is no longer
needed due to the creation of the new definition for Human Service Facilities.
PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:
A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
human service multi-use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and
supportive housing. The human service providers do not agree with a 500-foot
separation between social service facilities and schools and residential district boundary
lines because it significantly decreases the amount and location of available property. It
also limits the ability of the clients utilizing these services to live in a residential
neighborhood. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively
impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and
the providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.
A Public Staff Conference was held on

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ _8/29/08_________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1419-18 - Human Service Facilities.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
additional regulations for “Human Service Facilities.”

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1419-18 Human Service Facilities

A Human Service Facility must be located, developed and operated in compliance with
the following:

(a) A plan demonstrating controls for the following must be approved by the Director of
the Department of City Planning and Buildings after review and recommendation by
other City Departments:

(1) A Facility Description including:

a. A description of the services to be provided and the

population that will be served

b. An assessment of facilities providing similar services

within a half mile radius.

c. An explanation of why the services are needed at the

given location.

d. A description of efforts to collaborate or consolidate with

other providers.

(2) A Management Plan explaining the operation and management

of the facility including the number of employees, hours of
operation, number of clients to be served weekly,

(3) Litter Control that includes trash receptacles, daily litter

pickups, and customer awareness activities.

(4) A Security Plan where the person on duty must be able to

monitor the grounds, facility, and client activity to help prevent theft
and physical harm.

(5) A Loitering and Noise Control Program that addresses

telephone booths, benches, tables, and other on-site activity areas.

(6) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

controls as set forth in the Cincinnati Police Department’s
 informational brochure entitled “Tactic to reduce Crime Through
CPTED.”

(7) Point of Contact Information.

(b) The Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings has the duty to make
a determination on the plan within 30 days of the filing of a completed Human Service
Facility Plan, unless the applicant approves an extension of time. If the Director fails to
render the determination within the specified time period, the Human Service Facility
Plan, shall be deemed approved.

(c) A 500-foot distance separation from another Human Service Facility measured from
lot line to lot line. The applicant must submit documentation of human services facilities
within a 500-foot radius of the proposed site.

(d) Required buffer yards. Where the side or rear of the use abuts a single-family
residential district, a buffer area ensuring visual and sonic separation shall be provided
pursuant to Chapter 1423-03, Landscaping Plan.

JUSTIFICATION:

The concentration of Human Service Facilities may potentially have negative impacts
on the neighborhood. Good Neighbor Plans are a common tool used by jurisdictions to
ensure that facilities consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for
mitigating any negative impacts. Additionally, distance separations have been used in
many juridictions to prevent concentration of controversial human service facilities.
Standards have been reviewed from Green Bay, Wisconsin, Kalamazoo, Michigan,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Fairfield and Sacramento, California, Wilmington, Delaware,
and Rochester, New York. The human service providers do not agree that a 500-foot
separation should be required between human service facilities because it significantly
decreases the amount and location of available property. Additionally human service
facilities have no greater impacts than a commercial office facility and therefore should
not be subject to the additional requirement of a 500-foot distance separation.
Neighborhood residents would like to see a 1,000-foot distance separation and feel that
distance separations are necessary because non-residential zoning districts jut in and
out of residential areas. Human service facilities have the potential to negatively impact
the quality of life in residential areas and therefore should be protected. The Zoning
Text Amendment Committee’s position was that human service facilities should not be
subject to any additional regulations.

The Zoning Code allows for Special Exceptions to these performance standards.
Special Exceptions are permitted after a careful review of such factors as location,
design, configuration and relation to adjacent uses to determine the desirability of
authorizing the exception on any given site. Special Exceptions may or may not be
appropriate in a particular location depending on the impacts on adjacent uses and how
adverse impacts may be minimized through building design, building siting, location of
driveway and parking and screening. An application for a Special Exception may be
approved by the Zoning Hearing Examiner only if the examiner makes all of the
following findings:
 (a) Compliance With Code and District Purposes. The proposed
development will be consistent with the purposes of the code and the
district where the use is located.

(b) No Substantial Impairment of Property Value. The proposed

development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of property
within the neighborhood in which it is located.

(c) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed development will not have an
adverse effect on the character of the area or the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed special exception will be constructed,
arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and
development of neighboring property in accord with applicable district
regulations.

(d) Compliance with Other Standards. The proposed development

complies with all other standards imposed on it by the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
human service multi-use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and
supportive housing. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively
impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and
the providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2008
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1419-19 - Human Service Multi-Use

Facilities.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to
additional regulations for Human Service Multi-Use Facilities.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1419-19 Human Service Multi-Use Center

A Human Service Multi-use Center must be located, developed and operated in
compliance with the following:

(a) A plan demonstrating controls for the following must be approved by the Director of
the Department of City Planning and Buildings after review and recommendation by
other City Departments:

(1) A Facility Description including:

a. A description of the services to be provided and the

population that will be served

b. An assessment of facilities providing similar services

within a half mile radius.

c. An explanation of why the services are needed at the

given location.

d. A description of efforts to collaborate or consolidate with

other service providers.

(2) A Management Plan explaining the operation and management

of the facility including the number of employees, hours of
operation, number of clients to be served weekly,

(3) Litter Control that includes trash receptacles, daily litter

pickups, and customer awareness activities.

(4) A Security Plan where the person on duty must be able to

monitor the grounds, facility and client activity to help prevent theft
and physical harm.

(5) A Loitering and Noise Control Program that addresses

telephone booths, benches, tables, and other on-site activity areas.

(6) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

controls as set forth in the Cincinnati Police Department’s
 informational brochure entitled “Tactic to Reduce Crime Through
CPTED.”

(7) Point of Contact Information.

(b) The Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings has the duty to make
a determination on the plan within 30 days of the filing of a completed Human Service
Multi-Use Center Plan, unless the applicant approves an extension of time. If the
Director fails to render the determination within the specified time period, the plan for
the Human Service Multi-Use Center shall be deemed approved.

(c) A 1,000-foot distance separation from another Human Service Multi-Use Facility
measured lot line to lot line. The applicant must submit documentation of human
services multi-use facilities located within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed site.

(d) A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district
boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines.

Renumber existing 1419-19 to 1419-20

JUSTIFICATION:

Good Neighbor Plans are a common tool used by jurisdictions to ensure that facilities
consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any
negative impacts. Additionally, distance separations have been used in many
juridictions to prevent concentration of controversial human service facilities. Standards
have been reviewed from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; Fairfield and Sacramento, California; Wilmington, Delaware, and Rochester,
New York. The human service providers do not agree that a 500-foot separation should
be required between the multi-use facilities and schools and residential district boundary
lines because it significantly decreases the amount and location of available property. It
also limits the ability of the clients utilizing these services to live in a residential
neighborhood. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively
impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and
the providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

Neighborhood residents feel that distance separations are necessary because non-
residential zoning district jut in and out of residential areas. Large multi-use centers
have the potential to negatively impact the quality of life in residential areas and
therefore, should be protected.

The Zoning Code allows for Special Exceptions to these performance standards.
Special Exceptions are permitted after a careful review of such factors as location,
design, configuration and relation to adjacent uses to determine the desirability of
authorizing the exception on any given site. Special Exceptions may or may not be
appropriate in a particular location depending on the impacts on adjacent uses and how
adverse impacts may be minimized through building design, building siting, location of
driveway and parking and screening. An application for a Special Exception may be
approved by the Zoning Hearing Examiner only if the examiner makes all of the
following findings:
(a) Compliance With Code and District Purposes. The proposed
development will be consistent with the purposes of the code and the
district where the use is located.

(b) No Substantial Impairment of Property Value. The proposed

development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of property
within the neighborhood in which it is located.

(c) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed development will not have an
adverse effect on the character of the area or the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed special exception will be constructed,
arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and
development of neighboring property in accord with applicable district
regulations.

(d) Compliance with Other Standards. The proposed development

complies with all other standards imposed on it by the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
human service multi-use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and
supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1419-26. - Soup Kitchens, Limited

and Full Service.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments
related to additional regulations for Limited and Full Service Soup Kitchens.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1419-26 Soup Kitchens, Limited and Full Service.

Soup Kitchens must be located, developed and operated in compliance with the
following:

(a) A plan demonstrating controls for the following must be approved by the Director of
the Department of City Planning and Buildings after review and recommendation by
other City Departments:

(1) A Facility Description including:

a. A description of the services to be provided and the

population that will be served

b. An assessment of facilities providing similar services

within a half mile radius.

c. An explanation of why the services are needed at the

given location.

d. A description of efforts to collaborate or consolidate with

other providers.

(2) A Management Plan explaining the operation and management

of the facility including the number of employees, hours of
operation, number of clients to be served weekly,

(3) Litter Control that includes trash receptacles, daily litter

pickups, and customer awareness activities.

(4) A Security Plan where the person on duty must be able to

monitor the grounds, facility and client activity to help prevent theft
and physical harm.

(5) A Loitering and Noise Control Program that addresses

telephone booths, benches, tables, and other on-site activity areas.

(6) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

controls as set forth in the Cincinnati Police Department’s
 informational brochure entitled “Tactic to Reduce Crime Through
CPTED.”

(7) Restroom Availability for soup kitchens, full service.

(8) Point of Contact Information.

(b) The Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings has the duty to make
a determination on the plan within 30 days of the filing of a completed Soup Kitchen
Plan, unless the applicant approves an extension of time. If the Director fails to render
the determination within the specified time period, the Soup Kitchen Plan shall be
deemed approved.

(c) A 1,000-foot distance separation between Soup Kitchens providing concurrent

operating hours measured lot line to lot line. The applicant must submit documentation
of soup kitchens located within a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed site.

(d) Required buffer yards. Where the side or rear of the use abuts a single-family
residential district, a buffer area ensuring visual and sonic separation shall be provided
pursuant to Chapter 1423-03, Landscaping Plan.

JUSTIFICATION:
Good Neighbor Plans are a common tool used by jurisdictions to ensure that facilities
consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any
negative impacts. Additionally, distance separations have been used in many
juridictions to prevent concentration of controversial human service facilities. Standards
have been reviewed from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; Fairfield and Sacramento, California; Wilmington, Delaware; and Rochester,
New York. Both the human service providers neighborhood residents agreed on the
above additional regulations. However, the Zoning Text Amendment Committee did not
feel that soup kitchens should be subject to additional regulations.

The Zoning Code allows for Special Exceptions to these performance standards.
Special Exceptions are permitted after a careful review of such factors as location,
design, configuration and relation to adjacent uses to determine the desirability of
authorizing the exception on any given site. Special Exceptions may or may not be
appropriate in a particular location depending on the impacts on adjacent uses and how
adverse impacts may be minimized through building design, building siting, location of
driveway and parking and screening. An application for a Special Exception may be
approved by the Zoning Hearing Examiner only if the examiner makes all of the
following findings:

(a) Compliance With Code and District Purposes. The proposed

development will be consistent with the purposes of the code and the
district where the use is located.

(b) No Substantial Impairment of Property Value. The proposed

development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of property
within the neighborhood in which it is located.
 (c) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed development will not have an
adverse effect on the character of the area or the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed special exception will be constructed,
arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and
development of neighboring property in accord with applicable district
regulations.

(d) Compliance with Other Standards. The proposed development

complies with all other standards imposed on it by the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments
received were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities,
human service multi-use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and
supportive housing. Social service facilities have the potential to positively or negatively
impact the quality of life in residential areas. The intent and mission of social service
providers is to improve the lives of all people. Any negative impact is unintentional and
the providers felt that negative impacts should not be stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2008
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendment for §1419-27 - Special Assistance Shelter.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments related to
additional development regulations for Special Assistance Shelters.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1419-27. Special Assistance Shelter.

A Special Assistance Shelter must be located, developed and operated in compliance with the
following:

(a) A plan demonstrating controls for the following must be approved by the Director of the
Department of City Planning and Buildings after review and recommendation by other City
Departments:

(1) A Facility Description including:

a. A description of the services to be provided and the population

that will be served

b. An assessment of facilities providing similar services within a

half mile radius.

c. An explanation of why the services are needed at the given

location.

d. A description of efforts to collaborate or consolidate with other

service providers.

(2) A Management Plan explaining the operation and management of the

facility including the number of employees, hours of operation, number of
clients to be served weekly,

(3) Litter Control that includes trash receptacles, daily litter pickups, and
customer awareness activities.

(4) A Security Plan where the person on duty must be able to monitor the
grounds, facility and client activity to help prevent theft and physical harm.

(5) A Loitering and Noise Control Program that addresses telephone

booths, benches, tables, and other on-site activity areas.

(6) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) controls

as set forth in the Cincinnati Police Department’s informational brochure
entitled “Tactic to Reduce Crime Through CPTED.”

(7) Point of Contact Information.

(b) The Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings has the duty to make a
determination on the plan within 30 days of the filing of a completed Special Assistance Shelter
Plan, unless the applicant approves an extension of time. If the Director fails to render the
determination within the specified time period, the Special Assistance Shelter Plan shall be
deemed approved.

(b) A 1,000-foot distance separation from another Special Assistance Shelter measured lot line
to lot line. The applicant must submit documentation of special assistance shelters located
within a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed site.

(c) A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district
boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines.

(d) Special assistance shelters must provide at least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping
facilities and

(e) The sleeping facilities of each Special Assistance Shelter are limited to 65 individuals.

JUSTIFICATION:
The proposed amendments provide the tools needed by staff to ensure that these facilities are
appropriately located. This amendment will limit the size of shelters to further mitigate potential
impacts on the neighborhoods. On March 7, 2008 the Planning Commission approved a text
amendment that limited the Special Assistance Shelters to 50 individuals. The Committee is
requesting that Special Assistance Shelters be limited to 65 individuals, which is based on the
best practice of the Mt. Airy Shelter. Additional development regulations have been provided
that are consistent with the additional development regulations provided for Human Service
Multi-use Centers and Human Service Facilities.

The concentration of shelters potentially may have negative impacts on the neighborhood. Good
Neighbor Plans are a common tool used by jurisdictions to ensure that facilities consider
potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any negative impacts.
Additionally, distance separations have been used in many jurisdictions to prevent concentration
of controversial human service facilities. Standards have been reviewed from Green Bay,
Wisconsin; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Fairfield and Sacramento,
California; Wilmington, Delaware; and Rochester, New York. The human service providers do
not agree that a 500-foot separation should be required between human service facilities
because it significantly decreases the amount and location of available property. Social service
facilities have the potential to positively or negatively impact the quality of life in residential
areas. The intent and mission of social service providers is to improve the lives of all people.
Any negative impact is unintentional and the providers felt that negative impacts should not be
stated as a primary outcome.

Neighborhood residents would like to see a 1,000 foot distance separation and feel that
distance separations are necessary because non-residential zoning districts jut in and out of
residential areas. Human service facilities have the potential to negatively impact the quality of
life in residential areas and therefore, should be protected. The Zoning Text Amendment
Committee’s position was that human service facilities should not be subject to any additional
regulations.

The Zoning Code allows for Special Exceptions to these performance standards. Special
Exceptions are permitted after a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration
and relation to adjacent uses to determine the desirability of authorizing the exception on any
given site. Special Exceptions may or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending
on the impacts on adjacent uses and how adverse impacts may be minimized through building
design, building siting, location of driveway and parking and screening. An application for a
Special Exception may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Examiner only if the examiner
makes all of the following findings:

(a) Compliance With Code and District Purposes. The proposed development
will be consistent with the purposes of the code and the district where the use is
located.

(b) No Substantial Impairment of Property Value. The proposed development will

not substantially diminish or impair the value of property within the neighborhood
in which it is located.

(c) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed development will not have an
adverse effect on the character of the area or the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed special exception will be constructed, arranged
and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development of
neighboring property in accord with applicable district regulations.

(d) Compliance with Other Standards. The proposed development complies with
all other standards imposed on it by the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments received
were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities, human service multi-
use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and supportive housing.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning Department and Buildings recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

Margaret A. Wuerstle, AICP,

Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________

Charles C. Graves, III

Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendment for §1419-28 - Supportive Housing.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission on text amendments related to additional
development regulations for Supportive Housing.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1419-28. Supportive Housing.

Supportive Housing program (c)7 must be located, developed and operated in compliance with
the following:

(a) A plan demonstrating controls for the following must be approved by the Director of the
Department of City Planning and Buildings after review and recommendation by other City
Departments:

(1) A Facility Description including:

a. A description of the services to be provided and the population

that will be served

b. An assessment of facilities providing similar services within a

half mile radius.

c. An explanation of why the services are needed at the given

location.

d. A description of efforts to collaborate or consolidate with other

providers.

(2) A Management Plan explaining the operation and management of the

facility including the number of employees, hours of operation, number of
clients to be served weekly,

(3) Litter Control that includes trash receptacles, daily litter pickups, and
customer awareness activities.

(4) A Security Plan where the person on duty must be able to monitor the
grounds, facility and client activity to help prevent theft and physical harm.

(5) A Loitering and Noise Control Program that addresses telephone

booths, benches, tables, and other on-site activity areas.

(6) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) controls

as set forth in the Cincinnati Police Department’s informational brochure
entitled “Tactic to Reduce Crime Through CPTED.”

(7) Point of Contact Information.

(b) The Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildingshas the duty to make a
determination on the plan within 30 days of the filing of a completed Support Housing Plan,
unless the applicant approves an extension of time. If the Director fails to render the
determination within the specified time period, the Support Housing Plan shall be deemed
approved.

(c) A 1,000-foot distance separation from another Supportive.Housing facility measured lot line
to lot line. The applicant must submit documentation of supportive housing facilities within a
1,000-foot radius of the proposed site.

(d) A 500-foot distance separation from schools, Single-Family (SF) Residential district
boundary lines and Riverfront Residential/Recreational (RF-R) district boundary lines.

(e) Supportive Housing facilities must provide at least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping
facilities .

Renumber existing 1419-27- to 1419-30

JUSTIFICATION:
The above amendments, provide the tools needed by staff to ensure that these facilities are
appropriately located. The Supportive Housing §1401-01-S17(c)(7) program addresses the
Housing First Model program. The Housing First Model is a program that takes chronically
homeless individuals from shelters and places them in permanent housing units with optional
support services. The individuals may have drug and/or alcohol issues or they may have a
mental illness. This program meets these individuals “where they are at” and does not require
them to be free of drugs, sober or take medications for a mental illness in order to live in these
units. Programs are provided on-site, but the individuals may choose not to use the services.
The addition of §1401-01-S17(c)(7) to the Supportive Housing definition will ensure that units
under the Housing First Model are appropriately located. The above text amendments provide
additional development regulations to ensure that providers of §1401-01-S17(c)(7) programs
consider potential impacts on neighborhoods and develop plans for mitigating any negative
impacts. Additionally, distance separations have been used in many jurisdictions to prevent
concentration of controversial human service facilities. Standards have been reviewed from
Green Bay, Wisconsin; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Fairfield and
Sacramento, California; Wilmington, Delaware; and Rochester, New York. Neighborhood
residents feel that distance separations are necessary because non-residential zoning districts
jut in and out of residential areas. Certain types of supportive housing have the potential to
negatively impact the quality of life in residential areas and therefore, should be protected.

The Fair Housing Act protects people who are recovering from substance abuse. It does not
protect persons who are currently engaging in the current illegal use of controlled substances.
Therefore, the distance separations are proposed for the Housing First Model §1401-01-
S17(c)(7) program and not halfway housing (c5 and c6 programs) because it is presumed that
these programs would be housing individuals recovering from substance abuse.

The Zoning Code allows for Special Exceptions to these performance standards. Special
Exceptions are permitted after a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration
and relation to adjacent uses to determine the desirability of authorizing the exception on any
given site. Special Exceptions may or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending
on the impacts on adjacent uses and how adverse impacts may be minimized through building
design, building siting, location of driveway and parking and screening. An application for a
Special Exception may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Examiner only if the examiner
makes all of the following findings:
 (a) Compliance With Code and District Purposes. The proposed development
will be consistent with the purposes of the code and the district where the use is
located.

(b) No Substantial Impairment of Property Value. The proposed development will

not substantially diminish or impair the value of property within the neighborhood
in which it is located.

(c) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed development will not have an
adverse effect on the character of the area or the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed special exception will be constructed, arranged
and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development of
neighboring property in accord with applicable district regulations.

(d) Compliance with Other Standards. The proposed development complies with
all other standards imposed on it by the code.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. Most of the comments received
were objections to the additional regulations for human service facilities, human service multi-
use centers, special assistance shelters, soup kitchens and supportive housing. Social service
facilities have the potential to positively or negatively impact the quality of life in residential
areas. The intent and mission of social service providers is to improve the lives of all people.
Any negative impact is unintentional and the providers felt that negative impacts should not be
stated as a primary outcome.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings staff recommends that the City Planning
Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

Margaret A. Wuerstle, AICP

Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
Honorable City Planning Commission February 10, 2009
Cincinnati, Ohio

SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1425-19 - Parking Requirements for

Human Service Multi-Use Centers.

PURPOSE:
To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments
related to parking requirements for Human Service Multi-Use Centers.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:

§ 1425-19. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements.
Off-street parking and loading requirements must be provided in accordance with
Schedules 1425-19-A and 1425-19-B. Unless a use is specifically noted under the
appropriate use classification heading, the parking and loading requirements apply
uniformly to all uses within a use classification. Off-street parking and loading
requirements for uses in the DD Districts are subject to the provisions of Chapter 1411,
Downtown Development Districts.
Off-street parking and loading facilities must be made permanently available to the use
served. Where the use is undetermined or the parking requirement is not established in
Schedule 1425-19-A, the Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings
must determine the probable use and number of spaces required.

Schedule 1425-19-A: Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements (*revised

9/12/07 by Ordinance #346-2007)

Use Classifications Required Parking Loading User

(Sq. Ft. of Gross Floor Area) Group
Residential Uses
Bed and breakfast home 2 for every dwelling, plus 1 for
every guest room
Child day care home No additional spaces required
Group residential 1 for every 2 residents
Permanent residential
Single-family
SF-4, SF-6, SF-10, SF-20 2 for every unit
SF-2, RM, O, C, M, UM, RF-R and IR 1 for every unit (revised 1/18/07 by
Ordinance #22-2007)
Attached single-family 1 for every unit
Rowhouse single-family 1 for every unit
Two-family 1 for every unit
Multi-family
RM2.0, RM1.2, OL 1.5 for every unit
RM0.7, OG, C, UM, M, RF-R and IR 1 for every unit (revised 1/18/07 by
Ordinance #22-2007)
Residential care facilities
Assisted living 1 for every 4 residents
Developmental disability dwelling 1 for every 4 residents
Nursing home 1 for every 4 residents
Special assistance shelters 1 for every 3 employees plus 1
for every facility vehicle
Transitional Supportive housing 1 for every facility plus 1 for every
8 beds
Public and Semi Public Uses
Use Classifications
Cemeteries
Day care center
Clubs and lodges
Colleges, public or private
Community service facilities
Cultural institutions
Government facilities and offices
Facilities and installations
Correctional institutions
Offices
Hospitals
Human Service Facility
Human Service, Multi-Use Center
Parks and recreation facilities
Public maintenance facilities
Public safety facilities
Religious assembly
School, public or private
Commercial Uses
Under 2,000 sqare feet of gross floor area
2,000 square feet of gross floor area or
more
Ambulance services
Animal services
Banks and financial institutions
Bed and breakfast inns
Building materials and services
Building maintenance services
Business services
Commercial meeting facility
Eating and drinking establishments
Drinking establishments
Restaurants, full service
Restaurants, limited service
Outdoor areas of eating and drinking
establishments
Food markets
Food preparation
Funeral and interment services
Required Parking Loading User
(Sq. Ft. of Gross Floor Area) Group
None
2 for every facility, plus 1 for
every 8 clients
1 for every 100 sq. ft. 3
1 for every 3 auditorium seats 3
plus 1 for every 5 classroom
seats
1 for every 100 sq. ft.
1 for every 500 sq. ft. or 1 for 3
every 8 seats, whichever is
greater
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft. 1
1 for every 20 beds 1
1 for every 750 sq. ft. 1
1 for every bed 3
1 for every 750 sq. ft
1 for every 3 employees or
volunteers plus 1 for every facility
vehicle
1 for every 100 sq. ft. of indoor
area
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 30 sq. ft. in principal
assembly area
High School: 1 for every 10
classroom seats 3
Elementary School: 1 for every
30 classroom seats
No spaces required
As required below
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 400 sq. ft.
1 for every 200 sq. ft. of gross 2
floor area of the first floor, plus 1
for every 250 sq. ft. of gross floor
area of any other floors.
1 for every facility plus 1 for every
guest room
1 for every 400 sq. ft. 4
1 for every 400 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 50 sq. ft. 3
1 for every 150 sq. ft.
1 for every 150 sq. ft.
1 for every 150 sq. ft.
1 for every 300 sq.ft. (*Revised
4/19/06 Ordinance #0096-2006)
1 for every 150 sq. ft. where it 1
exceeds 2,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 750 sq. ft.
1 for every 50 sq. ft. used for
Use Classifications
Garden supply stores and nurseries
Hotels and commercial lodging
Loft dwelling units
Laboratories, commercial
Maintenance and repair services
Medical services and clinics
Offices
Personal services
Personal instructional services
Recreation and entertainment
Indoor and small scale
Bingo parlors, fitness centers,
gymnasiums
Billiard parlors, poolrooms,
amusement arcades, handball,
racquetball or tennis club
facilities, ice or roller skating
rinks, miniature golf courses
Movie theater (three or less screens)
Bowling centers
Outdoor or large scale
Sports stadiums and arenas, movie
theaters (4 or more screens),
racetracks
Amusement and theme parks,
driving ranges, swimming or
wave pools, entertainment
complexes, drive-in theaters,
archery or shooting ranges,
riding stables, campgrounds
Retail sales
Sexually oriented business
Vehicle and equipment services
Vehicle and equipment sales and
rental
Car wash
Fuel sales
Vehicle repair
Automobile holding facilities
Industrial Uses
Production industry
Research and development
Warehousing and storage
Contractor's storage
Indoor storage
Waste management
Wholesaling and distribution
Transportation, Communication and
Utilities Uses
Communications facilities
Public utility distribution system
Public utility maintenance yard
Required Parking Loading User
(Sq. Ft. of Gross Floor Area) Group
assembly
1 for every 400 sq. ft.
1 for every guest room 3
1 for every unit
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 400 sq. ft.
1 for every 150 sq. ft.
1 for every 400 sq. ft. 2
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 50 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 5 seats
5 for every bowling lane
1 for every 5 seats
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft. 1
1 for every 250 sq. ft.
1 for every 400 sq. ft. of office
sales or rental area
See Sec. 1419-11
None
2 for every service bay or 1 for
every 250 sq. ft., whichever is
greater
None
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft. 4
1 for every 750 sq. ft. 2
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
4 spaces
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft. 4
1 for every 600 sq. ft. plus 1 for 2
every 3 auditorium seats
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
Use Classifications
Public utility plant
Transportation facilities
Airports
Heliports
Railroad train yards
Railroad right-of-way
Transportation passenger terminals
Truck terminal and warehouse
Watercraft and riverfront facilities
Barge terminals
Boat and ship yards
Commercial piers and ports
Marinas
Marine sales and services
Agriculture and Extractive Uses
Farming
Mining and quarrying
Required Parking Loading User
(Sq. Ft. of Gross Floor Area) Group
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 250 sq. ft of terminal 1
building
None
None
None
1 for every 2,000 sq. ft.
0-100,000 sq. ft: 1 for every 4
2,000 feet
Over 100,000: 1 for every 4,000
sq. ft. over 100,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 2,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 2,000 sq. ft.
1 for every 2,000 sq. ft.
1 for every two berths
1 for every 400 sq. ft.
1 for every site
1 for every 1,000 sq. ft.

Schedule 1425-19-B: Loading User Group Classification

Group Requirement
Group 1
0 - 9,999 sq. ft. No spaces required
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft. 1 space
25,000 - 49,999 sq. ft. 2 spaces
50,000 - 99,999 sq. ft. 3 spaces
100,000 sq. ft. or more 1 additional space for each 100,000 sq. ft. in excess of
100,000 sq. ft.
Group 2
0 - 29,999 sq. ft. No spaces required
30,000 - 99,999 sq. ft. 1 space
100,000 - 499,000 sq. ft. 1 additional space for every 100,000
500,000 sq. ft. or more 1 additional space for every 500,000
Group 3
0 - 9,999 sq. ft. No spaces required
10,000 - 99,999 sq. ft. 1 space
100,000 sq. ft. or more 1 additional space for each 100,000 sq. ft.
Group 4
0 - 4,999 sq. ft. No spaces required
5,000 - 39,999 sq. ft. 1 space
40,000 - 99,999 sq. ft. 2 spaces
100,000 sq. ft. or more 1 additional space for each 100,000 in excess of
100,000

JUSTIFICATION:
Human Service facilities may provide a variety of services including job training and
counseling. The personal service instruction use and personal services use require 1
parking space for every 250 square feet of space. Commercial offices require 1 parking
space for every 400 square feet of space and government offices require 1 parking
space for every 750 square feet of space. The human service facilities requirement has
been set at the same level as a government office. The parking requirements for a
Human Service Multi-use Center are similar to those required of a Special Assistance
Shelter.

PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE:

A public staff conference was held on November 12, 2008. No comments were received
on this text amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff of the Department of City Planning and Buildings recommends that the City
Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

______________________________________ 8/29/08__________
Margaret Wuerstle, AICP ZTAC
Chief Planner

APPROVED:

_________________________________________
Charles C. Graves, III
Director, City Planning and Buildings Department
 Existing Use Regulations ( as per 8/26/08 meeting)

Add’l
Permanent Community Special Supportive Housing
Regulations
Zoning District Supportive Services Assistance
Housing Facility Shelter S 1-4 S5 S6 S7 S7

Single-family (SF-20) -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-10) -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-6) -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-4) -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-2) -- -- -- -- -- --
Residential Mixed (RMX) -- C -- -- -- ---
Residential Multi-family (RM-2.0) -- C -- P -- -- --
Residential Multi-family (RM-1.2) -- C -- P -- -- --
Residential Multi-family (RM-0.7) -- P C P -- -- C Yes See
§1419-28
Office Limited (OL) -- -- -- P -- -- --
Office General (OG) -- -- -- P P C C Yes See
§1419-28
Commercial Neighborhood (CN-P) -- P C P -- -- --
Commercial Neighborhood (CN-M) -- P C P -- -- --
Commercial Community (CC-P) -- P C P -- -- --
Commercial Community (CC-M) -- P C L2 P C C Yes See
1419-28
Commercial Community (CC-A) -- P C L2 P P L14 Yes See
1419-28
Commercial General (CG-A) -- P C -- P P L14 Yes See
1419-28
Urban Mix (UM) -- C C P -- -- --
Downtown Development (DD-A) -- P C P P L11 C Yes See
1419-28
Downtown Development (DD-B) -- P C P P L11 C Yes See
1419-28

Downtown Development (DD-C) -- P C P P L11 C Yes See

1419-28

Downtown Development (DD-D) -- P C P P L11 C Yes See

1419-28

Manufacturing Agricultural (MA) -- P -- -- -- -- -- Yes See

1419-28

Manufacturing Limited (ML) -- P C P -- -- C Yes See

 1419-28

Manufacturing General (MG) -- -- -- P P P --

Manufacturing Exclusive (ME) -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Riverfront Residential/Recreational -- P -- -- -- -- --
(RF-R)
Riverfront Commercial (RF-C) -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Riverfront Manufacturing (RF-M) -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Institutional-Residential (IR) -- P -- P C C --
C Designates uses permitted only after review and approval of the conditional use by the
Zoning Hearing Examiner. These uses may be subject to additional regulations as indicated.
L2 Permitted only above the ground floor in a mixed use facility
L11 Programs may not exceed 50 resident occupants
 Proposed Use Regulations

Restaurants Restaurants Drinking Human Service Human Service Soup Soup Kitchen Additional
Zoning District
Full Limited Establishments Facilities Multi-Use Center Kitchen Full Limited Regulations

Single-family (SF-20) -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-10) -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-6) -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-4) -- -- -- -- --
Single-family (SF-2) -- -- -- -- --
Residential Mixed (RMX) -- -- -- -- --
Residential Multi-family (RM-2.0) -- -- -- -- --
Residential Multi-family (RM-1.2) -- -- -- -- --
Residential Multi-family (RM-0.7) -- -- -- L6,7 -- -- Yes see §1419-18
Office Limited (OL) -- -- -- P -- -- Yes see §1419-18
Office General (OG) L4, 5 L4, 5 -- P -- -- Yes see §1419-18
Commercial Neighborhood (CN-P) L6, L13 L6, L13 L13 L13 -- -- Yes see §1419
Commercial Neighborhood (CN-M) L6, L13 L6, L13 L13 L13 -- -- Yes see §1419
Commercial Community (CC-P) L6 L6 P L15 -- -- Yes see §1419
Commercial Community (CC-M) P P P L15 C P P Yes see §1419
Commercial Community (CC-A) P P P P P P P Yes See §1419
Commercial General (CG-A) P P P P P P P Yes see §1419
Urban Mix (UM) L9 L9 P C -- -- --
Downtown Development (DD-A) L3 L3 P L14 C C C Yes see §1419
Downtown Development (DD-B) L3 L3 P L14 C C C Yes see §1419
Downtown Development (DD-C) L3 L3 P L14 C C C Yes see §1419
Downtown Development (DD-D) L3 L3 P L14 C C C Yes see §1419
Manufacturing Agricultural (MA) -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Manufacturing Limited (ML) P P P C -- -- --
Manufacturing General (MG) P P P C C -- -- Yes see §1419
Manufacturing Exclusive (ME) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Riverfront Residential/Recreational L1, 2,3 L1, 2,3 L1, 2,3 -- -- -- -- --
(RF-R)
Riverfront Commercial (RF-C) L2, 3 L2, 3 L2, 3 -- -- -- -- --
Riverfront Manufacturing (RF-M) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Institutional-Residential (IR) -- -- -- P P -- -- Yes see §1419

C Designates uses permitted only after review and approval of the conditional use by the Zoning Hearing Examiner. These uses may be subject to additional regulations as indicated.
L2 Permitted only above the ground floor in a mixed use facility
L6 Permitted only on arterial streets
L7 Permitted on the ground floor only and limited to a maximum of 2,500 sq. ft.; more space requires a conditional use approval.
L11 Programs may not exceed 50 resident occupants
L13 Use is limited to 15,000 square feet; more space requires conditional use approval.
L14 Use limited to 25, 000 sqaure feet; more space requires conditional use approval.
L15 Use limited to 25, 000 sqaure feet; more space requires conditional use approval.
 APPENDIX 1

Issues & Concentration

Final Report

August 14, 2008

The Social Service Committee sub-committee on Issues and Concentration was made up
of a broad representation of social service providers and concerned citizens. The
Department of City Planning requested that our committee address; impacts of “social
service” uses on neighborhoods, the impacts of regulations on services and providers and
determine alternatives for addressing the concentration issue.

Responses to the following questions are intended to address those issues.

1. What are the negative impacts of social service uses on neighborhoods?

(Targeted issues related to drug/abuse, mental illness—more consistent with services
provided for the homeless—but not across the board)

• Quality of life- increased crime. Recent police statistics indicate that during the first eight
months of this year, more than 2,000 arrests were made in Over-the-Rhine. More than
1,200 of the individuals arrested gave 212 West 12th (the Drop Inn Center) as their place
of residence.
• Behavior- loitering, littering, urinating…
• Negative perception but not necessarily a direct correlation to problems felt by
neighborhoods
• Potential decrease in property values
• Disincentive to business investment
• Deterrent to owner occupancy (flight)
• Regional magnet effect for “outsiders” and homeless

2. What are the positive impacts of (residential/ treatment centers) social

services on neighborhoods? See annotated handout on “Property Values/Crime
rates”

• Life change—services critical to providing resources needed to move forward in life

versus no resources at all
• Increased property values: studies show that “new” residential properties, if designed
well and maintained, can increase the property values in the immediate
neighborhoods (studies include, residential treatment, group home models, supportive
housing)
• Decreased crime: (studies show that crime levels were consistently lower next to
licensed treatment facilities than elsewhere in the same areas).

3. Should social services relating to the homeless or those providing housing be

addressed any differently than other social services?

1
 • Yes, situations where housing is included with the social services should be treated
differently (Emergency shelters vs. temporary/permanent housing)
• Differentiate between “homeless” and “chronically homeless”

4. What is the definition of “concentration” and/or “impacted” neighborhood?

• Consider the number of people being served in relation to the population in that
geographic area (% of those coming from within the community vs. those migrating
from other communities)
• Those being served in a community should not be grossly disproportionate to the
amount of residents permanently living in the community.
• Should look at concentration of public housing and percentage of socio-economic
status within an area. (See articles sited in annotated bibliography on concentration)
• Zoning regulations need to address number and distance between social services for
duplication & need.

5. Should “special” zoning regulations apply to “impacted” neighborhoods and

what would they be?

• If neighborhood is “impacted” any new services to be added must demonstrate that

the services are needed and will not negatively impact the neigborhood
• Size/Scale/Distance separation
• Must target and/or enforce “fair share” housing policies while preparing for “fierce”
criticism and reactions from receiving communities.

o Provide incentives that support social services within new receiving

communities

• See City Planning strategies to target “de-concentration” (See Annotated summary of

Zoning Strategies to target de-concentration)

o Montgomery County Moderately Priced Dwelling: Largest inclusionary

zoning in the country
o Massachusetts zoning law: 25K affordable housing units targeting
neighborhoods with less than 10% affordable housing
o Mount Laurel Doctrine: All municipalities are responsible to zone for “fair
share” within their own neighborhoods. Builders can by-pass “land use
approvals” if the area has less than 10% affordable housing
o California Housing Law: city/county must adopt a comprehensive plan to
govern its land use and planning decisions (must include 7 elements)

6. How would existing social service providers be affected by such “special”

regulations?

• Existing social services may be ‘locked’ into current neighborhood, if zoning makes
it more difficult to de-concentrate by relocating to other neighborhoods. Result may

2
 be they find it easier to remain in current concentrated location as a “nonconforming
use.”
• Negative impacts: deters consolidation. Increases costs, and puts social services
through a mire of red tape—less concentrated areas will likely resist re-location of
social services.

7. What actions could be taken by social service providers that would result in a
neighborhood no longer being “impacted” or “concentrated”?

• Service center hubs are a recognized trend in best practices

• Scale of service center hubs must be taken into consideration
• Social services must be willing to integrate and /or consolidate
services/partnerships
• The Housing First model is an alternative to consider in order to decrease the
number of homeless men & women on the street.
• “Good Neighbor” laws or regulations can reduce negative quality of life
impact.
• At some point, either by law or regulation, social service providers must
be held responsible for the behavior of the clients that they attract to a
neighborhood. Consider number of client arrests as a criteria in achieving
“Good Neighbor” status.

8. What zoning regulations would prevent a neighborhood from becoming

“impacted”?

• Distance separation of “like” social services

• Zoning that promotes better integration & consolidation
• Compatibility in size and scale relative to the community in which they are sited
• Community Involvement

9. What actions could be taken by social service providers that would prevent a
neighborhood from being “impacted”?

• Needs analysis (is the service needed compared to services provided)

• Better mobility from service provider to service provider (no loitering etc.)
• Provide appropriate and attractive places inside and out for clients during the day
(places to sit, shaded areas, access to restrooms
• Better integration of services (consolidation of services)
• Good Neighbor Agreements

10. What actions can city government take to help promote changes needed to
reduce or eliminate the effects of “concentration” of social services in any
neighborhood?

3
• Funding agencies (CDBG) to support/encourage deconcentration of services to
areas where there is high poverty concentration and low support services.
• Look at precedents that enforce mixed-income distribution of housing & services
• Create funding streams for “Housing First” initiatives
• Support and/or incentives (funding) for efforts towards consolidation and
integration of services
• Support those social service agencies that follow best practices and are “good
neighbors”
• Identify and track arrests to determine any connection to specific social services
clients and provide reports to those service providers and interested parties

4
 APPENDIX 2

Social Service Committee

Issues and Concentration
Recommendations
9/23/08

The Social Service sub-committee on Issues and Concentration, consisted of a broad

representation of social service providers and concerned citizens. While many members of the
committee come from different, if not opposite, points of view regarding the concentration of
social services, our goal was to provide meaningful feedback to our city officials. We understood
that we were unlikely to reach a consensus regarding a) the premise that social services are the
“causal” factor of negative impacts or that prohibiting social services is the appropriate strategy to
address “concentration” and b) the appropriate number of social services agencies “allowed” in a
given geographic area.

The term “concentration” does imply that at some point the number/ percentage of poverty a
given community will overwhelm the population. When that “tipping point” is reached, the
economic demographics begin to deteriorate and ultimately a struggling community emerges.

The challenge confronting city leadership is how to support the re-vitalization of areas of the city
which are largely dependent communities while acknowledging the factors and principles that
create socio-economic concentrations within neighborhoods as well as the need for a dignified
and comprehensive solution to re-vitalize the community and all who live in it, Over-the-Rhine
being the obvious example.

For the city to have sufficient financial resources to support services needed by the most needy,
sustained economic growth must be present. However, in order to make thorough decisions that
positively impact all aspects of the community, City Council leaders should look to examples of
“de-concentration” nationally—to understand that re-vitalization includes: a) a comprehensive
effort that includes distribution of housing in “non-concentrated” areas, b) the presence of
supportive, accessible wrap-around services and the incentives that allow for social services to
re-locate, c) anticipation of community resistance and d) knowledge of best practice social service
delivery models.

Our group hopes that our work can be a catalyst for encouraging City Council to look at
comprehensive solutions to “revitalization” as well as to investigate effective social service
delivery models that can reduce “negative” impacts.” Best practice trends point to collaboration of
certain agencies/services into collaborative efforts, sharing a common physical location.

City zoning regulations are intended to provide “rules” for what can and cannot be located in a
given area. Regulations are necessary for the protection of the rights of property owners, as well
the economic well being of the city. While zoning is one tool used by city government, city
leadership must address issues of poverty and their impact on individuals and communities by
looking at other strategies such as: a) best practice delivery systems addressing issues important
to communities such as loitering, litter, safety etc, b) integration of services, and c) strategies of
de-concentration and tactics needed to encourage communities to welcome diversity of residents
and services.

The Department of City Planning requested that our committee address; impacts of social
services on neighborhoods, the impact of regulations on services and providers and determine
alternatives for addressing the concentration issue.

5
Concentration of Social Services
The following criteria should be considered in evaluating concentration of social services (some
would argue poverty) in a given host community:

• The number of people being served by social service providers located in the host
community relative to the population of the host community

• The percentage of social service clients who live within the host community vs. those
being drawn from other communities/regions/states, in order to utilize services

NOTE: There is some disagreement concerning the above points: Some team members would
suggest that the issue has more to do with poverty and residency rather than the presence of
social services in general and the perception/impact that residency-based programs have on
communities.

NOTE: The influx of people receiving services who return to homes/residences in other
communities were not the primary target of the committees conversations. There was no
evidence to bear that people receiving services from other communities were the perpetrators of
crimes in local neighborhoods; rather, the evidence presented linked crimes committed in local
neighborhoods to shelter residents only and this data is contested. At this point, there is
speculation and no evidence that social service recipients in general create negative impacts.

• The proximity of the host community to abutting communities that may have a high
concentration of social services

• The number of and distance between social services and whether services are being
duplicated

• The concentration of public/shelter housing and percentage of low socio-economic status

within an area – 40% (See articles sited in annotated bibliography on concentration)

Negative Impact of Concentration of Social Services

The committee chose to focus on how the presence of (poverty) social services may impact the
“quality of life” of a community. However, there was significant disagreement among members on
this issue. There was a lack of evidence presented within the team that suggested that social
services have a direct correlation to negative community impact; on the contrary, research
highlights social services’ positive impact on adjacent communities such as increase in property
values and decrease in crime. Research points to “poverty” as the preeminent correlating factor
to negative impacts including violent crime and drug related activity.

While violent crime, generally related to illegal drug activity, is often present in communities with
high concentrations of (poverty) social services, the committee agreed that the presence of social
services does not directly correlate to such violent criminal activity.

Negative quality of life issues that may impact a community due to a high concentration of poverty
social services include the following:

• High frequency of Part 1 and Part 2 crimes.

6
 • Frequent police and other emergency calls diverting limited emergency response
resources from the balance of the community.
• A negative perception of safety leading to a poor business environment

• Large numbers of individuals loitering

• Evidence of public urination

• Proliferation of litter

• Poorly maintained properties

• Declining property values and low rates of owner-occupancy

Note: Issues noted above have more to do with issues of poverty and its subsets such as
homelessness rather than social services. In addition, many of the above identified issues have a
multitude of contributors and cannot be isolated to social services alone.

Definition of “impacted”
Definition 1:“Impacted” can be defined by a high concentration of social services significantly
contributes to the deterioration of the quality of life in a community and the introduction of more
social services into the community will cause further deterioration.

Definition 2: A neighborhood becomes “impacted” when the percentage of residents living in

poverty is over the rate of 30-40% (as identified by national models). Social Services are present
as a result of the need within the communities. “Impacted” communities should not be defined by
the presence of social services—rather, social services reflect the percentage of low income
recipients it serves.

Positive Impact of Social Services

The presence of social services can provide a positive impact to a community, as evidenced by
the following;

• Social services provide critical resources that clients need in order to improve their socio-
economic circumstances.

• Studies have shown that “new” residential properties for those in need, if designed well
and maintained, can increase property values in the immediate neighborhood (studies
include; residential treatment, group home models and supportive housing).

• Studies have shown that crime levels are lower next to licensed treatment facilities than
elsewhere in the same area.

Over-the-Rhine – Example of the Effects of Concentration

Over-the-Rhine (OTR) is an obvious example of the concentration and impaction of social

services on a community. The negative quality of life issues are all present.

• According to the 2007 Go Cincinnati “Drill Down” report, the population of OTR was
4,970. Very few residents own their own homes. The OTR Chamber of Commerce, in a
recent Social Services Survey, listed 87 social services in OTR, including 15 that
provided housing.

7
 Note: NKU produced a research study that identified 9700 non-profits in Greater Cincinnati
and its adjacent counties. OTR houses overall 1% with a higher concentration of residency-
based organizations. It is the “residency-based” support services that are of critical
importance to community residents.

• The number of unduplicated individuals living temporarily in housing provided by social

services in OTR annually, exceeds the number of permanent residents in OTR.

• An effort was made to identify the last permanent residence of clients using the housing
components of OTR social services. This would determine whether clients were primarily
from OTR or drawn to OTR by the concentration of social services.

• The Drop-Inn Center provided Vesta data on the ZIP code of last permanent residence
for their clients over an unspecified time period. This data is routinely requested from the
DIC clients during an interview on their 3rd day at the DIC. A total of 2623 clients
responded, with the following summarized results: 1431 did not give a ZIP code when
asked, Hamilton County (other than OTR) – 572, OTR area (45202) – 321, SW Ohio
(other than Hamilton County) – 40, Central Ohio – 29, Northern Ohio – 41, Indiana – 14,
Kentucky – 68, and 21 other states – 107. An unknown percentage of the 321clients from
the 45202 Zip transferred from other social service facilities or county facilities within
45202. No explanation was given by DIC as to why 1431 clients gave no response to the
ZIP code of their last permanent residence.

• Recent Cincinnati Police Department statistics for the period from 1/01/08 to 8/12/08
indicate there were more than 2,000 total arrests of individuals who gave an OTR
address as their place of residence. More than 1,200 of those arrests were of individuals
who gave 217 W. 12th Street (the Drop-Inn Center) as their place of residence.
Approximately 2/3 of these 1200 arrests occurred within a 1/2 mile radius of the DIC.

NOTE: There is significant challenge to the accuracy of the data overall

Committee Recommendations
Recommendations for Social Service providers
• Needs analysis (is the service needed compared to services provided)
• Better mobility from service provider to service provider (no loitering etc.)
• Better day services for Homeless (loitering)
• Better integration of services (consolidation of services)
• Good Neighbor Agreements
• Strategies that effectively address community concerns such as litter, loitering, and safety

Recommendations for City government

The Issues and Concentration Committees recommendations depend upon the various views of
its members.

Recommendation 1: City Government would establish a procedure whereby a community council

petitions City Council to designate their community as “impacted.” All stakeholders in that
community, including social services, would be given the opportunity to present their arguments
for or against the impaction case, based on (but not limited to) criteria relating to concentration:
population, median household incomes, and percentage of public housing could also be relevant
factors to be considered.

Therefore, introduction of any new social service providers into an “impacted” community would
need to justify its relevance based on the need in the community and if similar services are
currently present.

8
Recommendation 2: City Government would approach concentration of poverty comprehensively
recognizing outside strategies and “best practice models” directed towards critical issues facing
people in poverty and the various communities that receive the highest impact. Restricting certain
areas due to “impaction” would continue to narrow the opportunities for social services to provide
much needed services to the receiving communities because it is very difficult to de-concentrate
low income housing or residency-based programs/social services in “non-concentrated/impacted”
areas. In fact, there has been national precedence that required judicial action in order to “de-
concentrate” housing within neighborhoods less impacted.

Rather, City government should target strategies that focus on the specific behaviors and issues
that affect neighbors such as littler, loitering, and safety. By doing so, the concerns are addressed
specifically and communities and social services can co-locate with mutual benefit towards the
entire revitalization of the community.

Recommendations
• Create funding streams for Housing First initiatives (Best Practice trend)
• Support/incentivize efforts towards consolidation and integration of services
(Best practice trend)
• Funding agencies (CDBG) to support/encourage deconcentration of services to areas
where there is high poverty concentration and low support services.
• Look at precedents that enforce mixed-income distribution of housing & services (See
addendum)
• Look at city strategies concerning chronic homelessness. e.g. Prospects Courtyard in
San Antonio, a localized area for homeless men & women that is safe, engaging, and
dignified.
• Regulate against negative impacts like litter & loitering

9
 APPENDIX 3

SURVEY OF APPRAISERS

Date_____________

PART ONE

Professional
1. Appraisal certifications/memberships (circle all that apply): MAI, SREA,
Other______________________________________________________
2. Years of experience as an appraiser (__________years)
3. Years of experience in Hamilton County (__________years)

Introductory Question
4. When you are appraising a business property, does the existence of
certain types of nonprofit, charitable services such as a homeless shelter,
soup kitchen, halfway house or social/human service agency (regardless
of the condition of the property in which those uses are operated) in the
area ever result in you placing a lower valuation on a property?

______YES ______NO

5. When you are appraising a residential property, does the existence of

certain types of nonprofit, charitable services such as a homeless shelter,
soup kitchen, halfway house or social/human service agency (regardless
of the condition of the property in which those uses are operated) in the
area ever result in you placing a lower valuation on a property?

______YES ______NO

IF THE ANSWER TO BOTH QUESTIONS IS “NO”, YOU HAVE COMPLETED

THIS SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY IN THE ENVELOPE
SUPPLIED.

IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED, “YES” TO EITHER QUESTION, PLEASE

CONTINUE TO PART TWO.

10
 PART TWO

Distance Questions
6. When considering the existence of nearby nonprofit, charitable services
such as a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, halfway house or social/human
service agency in valuing a business property, approximately what
distance do you use to determine the uses that may affect the property
you are valuing?

_____same block _____500 feet _____1000 feet _____1500 feet

_____greater distance if fronting on the same street

_____greater distance for certain types of nonprofit, charitable services.

7. When considering the existence of nearby nonprofit, charitable services

such as a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, halfway house or social/human
service agency in valuing a residential property, approximately what
distance do you use to determine the uses that may affect the property
you are valuing?

_____same block _____500 feet _____1000 feet _____1500 feet

_____greater distance if fronting on the same street

_____greater distance for certain types of nonprofit, charitable services.

Service/Business Type Questions

8. Which of the following types of services or businesses would you consider
as possibly adversely affecting the value of a business (general retail)
property. Please CIRCLE all that apply, then use the lines to the left of
each item to RANK from HIGHEST (most negative) impact (#1) to
LOWEST impact of those that have an impact:

___Bar
___Bar with live entertainment
___Bookstore that advertises itself as XXX or “Adult”
___Bowling Alley
___Convenience store with gas pumps
___Daycare center
___Food bank or pantry for distribution of items for those in need
___Halfway house for recovery from alcohol use
___Halfway house for recovery from drug use
___Halfway house for persons released from prison

11
 ___Homeless Shelter
___Medical/Health clinic
___Office use
___Pawn shop
___Salvage yard
___Sexually Oriented Business
___Soup Kitchen
___Supportive housing for persons actively using alcohol or drugs
___Thrift store selling second-hand items

9. Which of the following types of services or businesses would you consider

as possibly adversely affecting the value of a residential property.
Please CIRCLE all that apply, then use the lines to the left of each item to
RANK from HIGHEST (most negative) impact (#1) to LOWEST impact of
those that have an impact:

___Bar
___Bar with live entertainment
___Bookstore that advertises itself as XXX or “Adult”
___Bowling Alley
___Convenience store with gas pumps
___Daycare center
___Food bank or pantry for distribution of items for those in need
___Halfway house for recovery from alcohol use
___Halfway house for recovery from drug use
___Halfway house for persons released from prison
___Homeless Shelter
___Medical clinic
___Office use
___Pawn shop
___Salvage yard
___Sexually Oriented Business
___Soup Kitchen
___Supportive housing for persons actively using alcohol or drugs
___Thrift store selling second-hand items

Other Comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

12
 APPENDIX 4
Police Department
Calls for Service 2006 - 2008

13
14
 APPENDIX 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Planning Association. 2003. Policy Guide on Homelessness. Chicago:

American Planning Association. Available at:
http://www.planning.org/policyguides/guides/homelessness.htm.

Ausman, Lynne. 2007. “Criminalization of Homeless Individuals in Cincinnati”, Greater

Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless. Available at: http://www.cincihomeless.org.

Boydell, Katherine M., et al. 1989. “The Effect of Group Homes for the Mentally Ill on
Residential Property Values.” Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 40(9): 957–958.
Available at: http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pdf_extract/40/9/957.

California Department of Housing and Community Development, State of. 2008.

“Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing.” Building Blocks for
Effective Housing Elements: Adequate Sites Inventory and Analysis. Available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element/Screen20b_homeless_trans.pdf.

Campa, Dennis J. 2007. “A Human Transformation Center,Project History, Public

Process, Project Overview”. City Council Presentation, item #27. September 6, 2007

Cincinnati (Ohio), City of. 2004. 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Vol. II, Needs and
Strategies. pp1-177.

Cincinnati (Ohio), City of. 2006. Zoning Board of Appeals. Case No. Z-3899-2006.
March 10, 2006.

Cincinnati (Ohio), City of. 2008. City Council Motion No. 200800062. January 15, 2008.

Cincinnati (Ohio), City of. 2008. City Council Resolution No.41-2008. June 25, 2008.

Cincinnati (Ohio), City of. 2008. City Council Ordinance No. 347-2008. October 8, 2008.

CityLink Ctr. v. City of Cincinnati and Omar Childress. 2007. Ohio 5873. Court of
Appeals, First Appellant District of Ohio, Hamilton County Ohio. Decision. November 2,
2007.

Daniels, Tom. 1999. When City and County Collide. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Dear, Michael, and S.M. Taylor. 1982. Not On Our Street: Community Attitudes Toward
Mental Health Care. London: Pion.

15
Dear, Michael, and Jennifer Wolch. 1987. Landscapes of Despair: from
Deinstitutionalization to Homelessness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fairfield (California), City of. 2007. City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance. Section 25.24.
Subsection 25.24.4.3. Homeless Shelters in the IL Zoning District. Available at
http://www.ci.fairfield.ca.us/files/SECTION5.pdf.

Fleck, Carole. 2008. “No Place to Call Home”. AARP Bulletin. October 2008.

FRONTLINE. 2005. “Deinstitutionalization: A Psychiatric ‘Titanic’ ”. Public

Broadcasting System. Available at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

Galster, George, et al. 1999. The Impacts of Supportive Housing on Neighborhoods and
Neighbors in Denver. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/suppsvcs/support.html.

Greater Baltimore Community Housing Resource Board. 1993. The Impact of Group
Homes on Residential Property Values in Baltimore County, Maryland. Baltimore:
Greater Baltimore Community Housing Resource Board. Available at
http://www.gbchrb.org/grphomes.htm.

Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Et al. v. City of Cincinnati. 2008. United
States District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Case No. 1:08CV603. September 10,
2008.

Green Bay (Wisconsin), City of. 2007. Municipal Code. Chapter 13. Chapter 13-600.
Land Use Development Standards. Section 13-1603. Congregate Living Uses. Available
at http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/forms/Code_Book/chp13.pdf.

Kalamazoo (Michigan), City of. 2007. Code of the City of Kalamazoo. Appendix A.
Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.2. Use-Specific Standards. Subsection X. Transitional
Residence. Available at http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/2666_A/2666-
App%20A%20Zoning%20Ord.pdf#xml=http://www.e-
codes.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&index=2666_A&filename=2666-
App%20A%20Zoning%20Ord.pdf&fn=D:\siteinfo\ecodes\codebooks\2666_A\2666-App
A Zoning Ord.pdf

Lamb,MD, Richard H. and Leona L. Bachrach, Ph.D., 2001. “Some Perspectives on

Deinstitutionalization”, Phyciatric Services, August 2001, Vol. 52 No. 8.

Lobao, Erik G. and Alan T. Murray. 2005. “Exploratory Analysis of the Homeless
Shelter System in Columbus, Ohio.” Geografiska Annaler, 87B(1): 61–73. Available at
http://cura.osu.edu/research/publications/data/lobao-murray05.pdf

Los Angeles (California), County of. 2005. An Assessment of Los Angeles County’s
Emergency Shelter System. Available at

16
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://www.shelterpartnership.org/shelterd
esign.pdf.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFp9plyHGM9hmtonircBq8zs933oA.

Mahaffey, Maryann. “Ordinance licensing homeless shelters helps homeless and

neighborhoods.” Nation’s Cities Weekly. January 20, 1997, 20.n3.

Masters, Jim. 2008. “ Growing ‘tent cities’ blamed on foreclosure crisis”. Reno, Nevada
(AP). CNN.com, Available at: http: www.nowpublic.com/world/growing-tent-cities-
blamed-foreclosure-crisis

Minneapolis (Minnesota), City of. 2008. Code of Ordinances. Title 20. Chapter 537.
Section 537.110. Allowed Accessory Uses and Structures. Available at
http://library3.municode.com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_action=setdoc
&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=fbfcb8b78d7b373af7fb76f33acb2789&infobase=11490.

Mitchell, Don. 2003. “No Right to the City, Anti-homeless Campaigns, Public Space
Zoning and the Problem of Necessity”. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight
for Public Space. 195-226. The Guilford Press.

Moynihan, Mr. 1999. “Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill”, Congressional Record

– Senate, Monday, July 12, 1999. 106th Congress, 1st session, 145 Cong Rec S 8295,
Vol.145, No. 97.

Pipoly, Geoff. 2008. “The homeless, panhandling, and redevelopment, Where

Cincinnati’s poorest fit in the new Downtown”. Pulse. Vol. 1, No. 31. August 6, 2008.

Oklahoma City (Oklahoma), City of. 2007. Municipal Code. Chapter 59. Article IX.
Section 59-9350. Standards for Specific Uses. Subsection 9350.27. Emergency Shelters
and Feeding Sites. Available at
http://library3.municode.com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_action=setdoc
&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=0718fed557c52193fccde59867c7ee4c&infobase=14500.

Padgett, Deborak K., and Leyla Gulcur and Sam Tsemberis. 2006 “Housing First
Services for People Who Are Homeless With Co-Curring Serious Mental Illness and
Substance Abuse”, Research on Social Work Practice, Vol.16 No 1, 74-83.

Pasadena (California), City of. 2005. City Code. Title 17. Article 5. Chapter 17.50.
Section 17.50.230. Religious Facilities. Subsection E. Temporary Homeless Shelters.
Available at http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/zoning/P-5.html#17.50.230.

Portland (Oregon), City of. 2001. Portland City Code. Title 33. Chapter 33.285. Short
Term Housing and Mass Shelters. Available at
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=53328&c=28197.

San Diego (California), City of. 2007. Municipal Code. Chapter 14. Article 1. Division 4.
Section 141.0412. Homeless Facilities. Available at
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter14/Ch14Art01Division04.pdf.

17
Schwaab, Jim (2000) “Give a Shelter a Home”, American Planning Association, Zoning
News, May 2000.

St. Cloud (Minnesota), City of. 2007. Zoning Ordinance. Article 18. R-5 General
Multiple Residential District. Available at
http://www.ci.stcloud.mn.us/Planning/ZoningOrd/art18.pdf.

STEPPS. 2006. Response to “Almost tenfold growth in social services”, The Boston
Globe, January 15, 2006. Available at:
http://www.stepps.info/sharp.growth.in.social.services.html.

STEPPS. 2006 “ Effects of the social service industry on residential property values”.
Available at http://www.stepps.info/property.values.html

Takahashi, Lois M. and Michael J. Dear. 1997. “The Changing Dynamics of Community
Opposition to Human Service Facilities.” Journal of the American Planning Association,
63(1): 79–93.

Torrey M.D., E. Fuller and Mary Zdanowicz, Esq.(1998) “Why Deinstitutionalization

Turned Deadly”, The Wall Street Journal, August 4, 1998.

United States Department of Justice. 1999. Civil Right Division. “ Joint Statement of the
Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development: Group
Homes, Local Land Use, and The Fair Housing Act”. Updated July 25, 2007. Available
at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/final8_1.php.

United States Department of Justice. 2000. Civil Rights Division. “Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons”. Updated July 25, 2008. Available at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_rluipa.php.

United States Department of Justice. 2004. Civil Rights Division. “ Joint Statement of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice:
Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act. Update July 25, 2008.
Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/jointstatement_ra.php.

Weisberg, Barbara. 1993. “One City’s Approach to NIMBY: How New York City
Developed a Fair Share Siting Process”. American Planning Association, Journal. 59(1):
93-97. Winter 1993.

Williams, Joseph p. and Amy E. Souchuns. 2003. “ Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000”. Available at: http://www.shipmangoodwin.com

Wilmington (Delaware), City of. 2007. City Code. Chapter 48. Article V. Division 2.
Section 48-193. C-2 Districts. Available at:

18
http://library1.municode.com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_action=setdoc
&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=d5aa38044855a9c7970c606f47555bd3&infobase=11715
.
Worcester Regional Research Bureau, 2005. “Siting Residential Social Programs: The
Process and the Options”. Report N0. 05-04. October 3, 2005.

19