PLAN COMMISSION Tuesday, February 7, 2012 ... - Village of Palatine

PLAN COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Present: Dennis Dwyer, Russ Smith, Doug Myslinski, Patrick Noonan, Teri Williams,
Katherine Sawyer, Matthew Lewandowski, Gavin Muldowney, Conrad Hansen,
Director of Planning and Zoning Ben Vyverberg, Assistant Director of Planning and
Zoning Kevin Anderson, Village Attorney Robert Kenny.
Minutes of the December 20 meeting were approved as amended. Chairman Dwyer asked that
the following wording be inserted on page 6 to replace the sentence starting with “To this
point....” “To this point, proposing development that requires variation from a village’s
regulations risks non-approval.”
Chairman Dwyer introduced the scope of the evening’s meeting.
Report of Public Hearing – Case 12-09 – Text Amendments
Chairman Dwyer read the notice of public hearing. The petitioner in Case 12-09, the Village of
Palatine, seeks approval of four changes to the Palatine Zoning Ordinance:
1. Text Amendments for Group Homes within the Village of Palatine. These amendments will
include Section 3.02 (Specific Definitions) and the Group Home criteria within the Permitted
and Special Use lists of Article 10 of the Village of Palatine Zoning Ordinance.
2. Text Amendment to Section 3.02 (Specific Definitions) of the Village of Palatine Zoning
Ordinance to add donation collection bins and directional signs;
3. Text Amendment to Article 4 (General Provisions) of the Village of Palatine Zoning
Ordinance to include the regulations for donation collection bins;
4. Text Amendment to Article 8 (Signage) to include bulk, placement, and quantity regulations
for directional signage.
The following petitioner’s exhibits were introduced:
1. Proposed text amendment language
2. Northwest Municipal Conference Survey on Group Homes
3. Northwest Municipal Conference Survey on Donation/Drop-off Bins
The following Objectors’ Exhibits were introduced:
1. Text Amendment proposed by residents (not Village of Palatine) and e-mails from:
a) The Hayner Family
b) Christopher and Kim Wheaton
c) Paul and Terri Scaglione
d) Gina and Ron Brinckerhoff
e) Jerome and Meaghan Waller
f) Simon Hill
g) Debby Hill, IIDA
h) Brian Garcea
i) Brian Christopher
j) Frank Annerino

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 2
k) Anupama Pradhan
l) Michael and Diane Schmidt
2. Zoning Matrix for surrounding communities
3. Joint statement of Department of Justice and Department of Housing and urban
Development
Ben Vyverberg suggested continuing consideration of Items #2-4 until the February 21.meeting.
Staff members and Attorney Robert Kenny were sworn in.
Kenny laid the groundwork for the presentation by describing procedures. He stressed that the
process applies to all properties in the village and is not targeted to a specific location. Despite
the high interest level of residents from a specific area, he noted that no formal application has
been filed for a group home. He urged residents in attendance to be responsive to this text
amendment and not focus on a specific group home.
He pointed out the unique character of modifying ordinance language regarding group homes.
Unlike other local zoning decisions, a federal statute has been interjected as a major factor in
Palatine’s consideration of group home regulations. This is the Federal Fair Housing Act
Amendments of 1988 as they apply to group homes. Noting that the federal government has in
effect preempted some of the local governments’ home rule capabilities in this area, Kenny said
that much litigation has arisen regarding the group home aspect of the Fair Housing Act. Local
governments are now on notice they cannot adopt local ordinances and/or policies that are:
1. discriminatory in purpose (intentionally seeking to prohibit group homes); or
2. discriminatory in its effect (inadvertently making it impossible for a group home to locate
in town); or
3. which fail to make reasonable accommodations for the needs of those covered by the
Fair Housing Act.
What these findings mean for Palatine, Kenny said, is the village cannot regulate group homes
without being subject to federal oversight and that the village needs to be aware of what courts
have said about group homes as it proceeds to adopt regulations governing group homes.
Kenny said the Fair Housing Act is intended to allow a handicapped person an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a single family home. The Act recognized that multiple residents
are required in order to make a group home feasible and viable, both therapeutically as well as
financially.
The question becomes: How many people can live in a group home? Cases adjudicated and
settled under the Fair Housing Act have struck down local ordinances limiting the number of
residents to:

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 3
8 – recovering alcoholic – St. Louis, Mo
9 – recovering alcoholic – Plainfield, NJ
25 – homeless shelter residents – Caldwell, ID
5 - Traumatic brain injury residents – Skokie, IL
6 – Mental illness residents – Elizabeth, NJ
Kenny said that according to the American Planning Association (APA), group homes for mental
illness tend to house from six to 15 residents, whereas group homes for the frail elderly have up
to 20 residents to be financially and therapeutically sound.
Types of persons protected by the Fair Housing Act are those whose handicaps are defined by
the Act as: “1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a
person’s major life activities; 2) a record of having such an impairment; and 3) being regarded
as having such an impairment.”
Two exceptions to the above definition are:
1. those residents who would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other
individuals or whose residency would result in substantial physical damage to the
property of others;
2. people afflicted with the current use of or addiction to a controlled substance.
Therefore, those who take drugs legally or who once were but
are no longer drug users are protected by the Fair Housing Act.
Courts have found the following handicaps to be protected by the Fair Housing Act:
1. Drug and Alcohol addiction recovery
2. Emotional problems
3. Mental illness and retardation
4. Old age
5. Communicable diseases, including AIDS and HIV
6. Traumatic brain injury
Kenny said many towns use the special use procedure to deal with group homes, while others
impose a long list of conditions that effectively deter group homes from coming to the town.
Using courts’ rulings that failure to grant a special use shows a failure on a town’s part to make
reasonable accommodation to permit group homes to locate there in many respects has
destroyed a town’s ability to prohibit group homes from coming to town, he said.
Kenny noted that Palatine has always been welcoming to group homes. Twelve are now
spread throughout the community. Palatine, however, did fight the U.S. Justice Department
when a home for the recovery of alcoholic dependency decided to disregard the village’s zoning
procedures and open in 1993. It was subsequently closed, apparently based on lack of
occupancy.

Plan commission
Tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 4
Vyverberg read the definition of group home into the record. He said that Palatine currently
permits group homes in all single family districts subject to the following:
1. No more than eight persons, plus staff
2. Licensed by the State of Illinois
3. A minimum of 1,000 feet maintained between homes
He said that group homes that do not meet these criteria require special use review and
approval, as follows:
Group homes that are not licensed or certified by the State of Illinois or are not
supervised, or those whether licensed and/or supervised or not, which have nine (9) or
more persons plus staff, subject to the following:
10.01. A minimum distance of one thousand three hundred (1,300) feet is maintained
between group homes.
10.02. The group home conforms to all provisions outlined in chapter 10 of the Code of
Ordinances or state licensing standards, if applicable to the use.(O-92-93 8/9/93)
Palatine’s planning staff proposes text amendments to the group home regulations in both the
permitted and special uses to address staff and resident parking requirements and application
of the relevant building, property maintenance, and fire codes. Staff also recommends
expanding the scope of our definition of group homes to more clearly reflect the direction
provided by the FFHA.
Proposed changes to the text amendment language include regulations for on-site parking as
well as bringing the definition of disability more in line with judicial findings.
Vyverberg said that the village would not require a special use for those whose population is
fewer than eight. Parking requirements would be governed by the lot/driveway size. Halfway
houses would be a special use throughout the village, he added.
He noted that staff size cannot be quantified. It depends on the population and its needs.
Parking, likewise, is based on needs and number of client/staff drivers.
He said that existing group homes would be grandfathered in.
All persons who wished to speak to the petition were sworn in.
Frank Annerino, 1195 N. Palos, said he is concerned about Palatine’s lax ways of allowing
group homes and halfway houses. He characterized them as businesses that, therefore, make
more profit with more clients. This does not match the intent of a family style environment in a
single family neighborhood, he added.

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 5
Large group homes mean overcrowding, safety issues, and lack of sufficient supervision, he
charged. Residents make interior modifications in homes by cutting family rooms in half or
bricking up garages to provide more bedroom space. These changes, which he described as
being irreversible, would lower neighborhood property values. He feels restrictions are too lax.
Eight residents plus staff in a 1,330 square foot single family home would bring the number of
persons to 15. This number would bring an increase in high noise level, traffic, including food
delivery traffic, and on-street parking, and a lot of disruption to the neighborhood, he added. He
said he would have no problem with a group home whose client population is four. He objects
to larger group homes.
Annerino said his research shows that according to a group home owner, the average stay in a
group home is 8 months. Staff longevity is 1 year.
Annerino presented proposed text amendments regarding group homes:
1. Deletion of alcohol addiction as being a cause of impairment
2. Change definition of family size to four or fewer. In addition, he proposed these words
be added in the definition of both small and large group homes: “A group home does not
include a residence that serves persons as an alternative to incarceration for a criminal
offense, or persons whose primary reason is alcohol or substance abuse, or persons
whose primary reason for placement is treatment of a communicable disease.
3. Deletion of Section 9.1 (pertaining again to number of clients)
4. Remove Section c10 and replace it with wording governing client size; licensing or
certification by the State of Illinois; maintain a minimum distance of 1,000 feet between
group homes; written notification of a proposed group home be delivered to all residents
within 500 feet of the property prior to special use request.
Annerino said having non-licensed group homes would be unacceptable.
Vyverberg said the number of clients in Palatine group homes is currently a floating number. He
said staff would further review the number of police calls to group homes.
Kenny said that if a person were using drugs, he would have no protection under the Fair
Housing Act. Annerino’s proposed wording would not pass Fair Housing Act muster, he added.
Four clients would not be sufficient for Fair Housing Act court cases, he said, noting that the Fair
Housing Act treats non-related persons in a group home as a family. You can’t use the same
definition for a standard family as you do for people with disabilities.
He warned that the village would run into trouble if alcohol abuse were deleted from the
definition.
Mrs. Sawyer noted that single family homes in Palatine could have 20 related persons living in
them without being regulated for numbers.

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 6
Kenny said that if a town prohibits group homes and doesn’t get sued, it gets away with its
policy. He noted that towns’ definitions of group homes are “all over the place.”
Halfway houses are a different matter, he added, noting that by definition residents can be
recovering drug users, those released from prison, children with behavior disorders. These are
not in the purview of the Fair Housing Act.
Hansen asked Annerino why he proposed removing categories from his proposed amendment.
Annerino said he feels it better to keep people out of neighborhoods who have committed a
crime.
Susan Christopher, 1311 N. Deer, said group homes fall in different categories. Current homes
are not transitional living for those in rehabilitation, she said. They have an investment in the
neighborhood they’re in. She asked that Palatine consider the safety of residents in the
neighborhood where group homes can be placed. “How can the village restrict the types of
patients and staff?” she asked.
Ms. Christopher noted that high incidence of group home violence: staff on patients, being
particularly bad, according to her research findings for New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
Palatine has a good record to date, she noted. However, she feels violence could be “just
around the corner, especially as Palatine transitions from permanent residents to transitional
residents.”
Brian Garcea, 1401 Autumn, asked what neighboring communities are doing. Vyverberg said
the Northwest Municipal Conference is the clearing house for the answers to Garcea’s question.
Garcea asked Palatine to get legal opinions on this issue from other towns.
He said he does not want a group home as his neighbor. “I would not have bought my house if
a group home had been in the neighborhood,” he said. “We can’t get rid of them entirely,” he
said, “so let’s make them as small as possible.”
Danny Contimica, 1328 N. Park ave., said he built his home four years ago. He had to comply
with Palatine building codes. He applauds Inverness for not allowing group homes. He doesn’t
want someone in drug rehabilitation or a halfway house hurting his daughter. Parking would not
be available on site for 13 cars, he asserted, so the parking will be done on street.
“I don’t want Palatine’s reputation to be it allows everything in order to get the almighty dollar,”
he said. He feels group homes would generate too much daytime traffic with deliveries and staff
comings and goings. “This will promote havoc, chaos, and violence,” he said.
Dwyer said Inverness is violating federal law. “This is not something to be proud of.”
Contimica said Palatine can say it “will not tolerate riff raff in our neighborhood.”

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 7
Dwyer said Palatine has a fine record with group homes. Problem areas cited were New York,
Los Angeles, and Seattle.
Dawn Wiebe, 1456 Edgewater ln., said she has a child with a disability who is growing up. She
has not yet applied for her daughter to live in a group home, but that day is coming. “Who
monitors the degree of impairment?” she asked. “Who checks on criminal backgrounds.”
Kenny responded to a neighbor’s question about a hypothetical situation involving a case of a
registered sex offender with a traumatic brain injury. “He would probably have to register as a
registered sex offender,” he said. “But, he would be within the purview of the Fair Housing Act.
The village would have to deal with decision making and background checks.”
Mrs. Wiebe said she is having trouble finding facilities. If one is approved in one state, does the
approval carry over to Illinois? She wants to be sure Illinois will regulate.
Kenny said he would investigate Mrs. Wiebe’s questions and concerns more thoroughly.
Vyverberg said staff will investigate issues raised at this public hearing, but he recommends that
the plan commission approve what the village has presented here this evening. He noted that
inspections of group homes are done regularly by the fire department.
In conclusion, Kenny said four is not a reasonable population size given the realities of the Fair
Housing Act. Eight has worked well in Palatine, he added. He said the addition of a parking
requirement is a healthy thing for the impact of a group home on a neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Hansen moved, Noonan seconded that the plan commission defer discussion of
1. Text Amendment to Section 3.02 (Specific Definitions) of the Village of Palatine Zoning
Ordinance to add donation collection bin and directional signs;
2. Text Amendment to Article 4 (General Provisions) of the Village of Palatine Zoning
Ordinance to include the regulations for donation collection bins;
3. Text Amendment to Article 8 (Signage) to include bulk, placement, and quantity regulations
for directional signage
to the February 21 meeting.
Unanimously carried.
(9-0)
During discussion of the group home public hearing, Annerino said that the fact that eight clients
is a successful number today doesn’t guarantee success in the future.
Kenny said staff is not aware of any complaints about that size of group home population.

plan commission
tuesday, february 7, 2012
page 8
Mrs. Sawyer said she is happy with the proposal. She was concerned that the village would
allow group homes that were not licensed.
Kenny responded that the Fair Housing Act provides protection to such a group home. He was
asked if Palatine is being too onerous in its restriction. Kenny said the village would have to talk
to the state to find examples of non-licensed group homes. He noted that the key words, “not
licensed by the state” could be the basis for requiring a special use permit in order to provide
the protections that State licensing would otherwise protect.
Mrs. Sawyer asked if a home is not licensed, why not?
Kenny said he will check on the licensing/non-licensing issue.
Dwyer outlined the following issues raised at this public hearing that plan commissioners will be
considering in its deliberations and voting:
1. Number of clients (group home population)
2. What is desired v. what the law requires.
3. Prohibiting residents from being recovering alcoholics.
4. Eliminating half way houses.
5. Wording issues.
6. Amount of licensing required.
Annerino asked the plan commission to make a recommendation this evening to speed the
process of consideration by the village council.
RECOMMENDATION
Hansen moved, Mrs. Williams seconded that the plan commission continue the public hearing
on Case 12-09 until February 21.
Unanimously carried.
(9-0)
After communications, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Natalie Meyer McKenzie
secretary