Some Raleigh City Councilor’s Want to Make Building Senior Housing More Difficult

There’s a Text Change (TC-11-17) that’s been causing quite a stir in City Council this week. TC-11-17 has come before City Council several times since first landing on the agenda on the April 3rd afternoon meeting. Below is a video that goes through the times the text change has been discussed at City Council. It’s 45 minutes long though, so grab some popcorn.

So first, what’s a ‘Text Change’ ?

Per the City of Raleigh website

“City Council may amend the City Code, or laws of the City, to address new development trends or to correct issues with existing language in the code. These changes are also known as text amendments.”

I’d encourage you to read the proposed text change HERE, but in summary, the text change would affect senior housing that offers private residences, medical support, and community amenities like a cafeteria.

1. They are currently called “Life Care Community” in the UDO, but the text change would change the name to “Continuing Care Retirement Facility”. That change was made due to these types of the community’s being marketed more as “Continuing Care Retirement Facilities”.
2. Reduce open space requirements from 30% to 10% (does not include property buffers). Basically, there’s a requirement that 30% of the land the facility is on has to be open to the air (outdoors). By reducing this to 10% it allows for more space to be developed, and for options for these centers to exist in areas close to downtown.
3. Make a Life Care Community a “limited use” in the R-10 and RX zoning districts. <- In bold because this is the change causing all the problems.

So before we get into the various issues some Council members (CM for short) have raised, let’s talk about what this would do. This text change would make it easier for a Continuing Care Retirement Facility (CCRF) to be built. These types of communities are usually situated within neighborhoods. They’re meant for people 62 years or older than need some medical assistance or help, but are not in such poor health that they’d need 24-hour professional medical care and monitoring that you’d see in a Nursing Home environment. This website called “A Place for Mom” does a good job explaining the various care options.

These CCRFs serve a vital need in Raleigh and all cities. It offers independent living and trained medical care available on demand. They also take care of providing meals, housekeeping, yard work, social outings, and more. Having these facilities in neighborhoods is a great match. The residents are respectful, they generally don’t need parking since the community provides transportation, and there’s little to no loud or disturbing activities at night.

A CCRF is required by North Carolina law to obtain a license from the state to operate (link to NCDOI). They are inspected and can have their license revoked if they don’t maintain, not only the facility but also the services and level of care the state mandates. This is all part of North Carolina law. It’s also very important to remember that the state government is responsible for licensing, inspecting, and enforcing these standards, not the City of Raleigh.

So…what’s the issue City Council Members (CMs) have?

There are concerns over the need for need for a “special use permit” for CCRFs. A special use permit requires the operator (“applicant”)  of the business to go before the board of adjustment and prove their building meets the requirements of the facility they claim to be. The hearing is “quasi-judicial” so average citizens can attend, but they’re not allowed to speak to things like stormwater runoff, noise, traffic, and other topics that require expert testimony. If the applicant meets the standards they’re granted the special use permit.

REMEMBER though…

the state government is responsible for licensing, inspecting, and enforcing these standards, not the City of Raleigh.

So, then why should CMs have an issue with the special use permit going away? CMs Mendell, Cox, Crowder, and Stephenson want neighborhoods to have the opportunity to attend the “quasi-judicial” hearing to have a say if a CCRF should be built in their neighborhood. This would add another layer of complexity to building a CCRF adding time, and money to the process. Also, remember the hearing is “quasi-judicial” so residents can’t even speak to issues you generally hear from people opposing a development. In fact, CM Mendell outlined some of those concerns, check out the video.

So, here’s an issue, those complaints about delivery trucks and ambulances (noise and traffic) would require expert testimony, so they couldn’t really be discussed by private citizens. This led to CM Cox recommending an even more drastic measure. Requiring these CCRFs to go through a rezoning process before they could be built. This would add a tremendous amount of time and cost to the development of a CCRF. However, CM Mendell went further requesting that not only CCRFs, but also Congregate care, and rest homes which currently do NOT require a special use permit in R-10 be changed so they DO require a special use permit. On that last piece, I’ve been having trouble getting CM Mendell to answer me on changing R-10 requirements on the facilities in regard to special use permits. It turns out, she makes the request twice in the first video I posted here. Once at the April 3rd meeting, and again at the April 17th meeting.

In CM Mendell’s perspective, she wants to give residents of R-10 neighborhoods the same chance that residents of R-1, 2, 4, and 6 districts have in regards to weighing in on a congregate care or rest home being built in their neighborhood. However, her and CM Cox, and CM Crowder at the May 1st council meeting all mention pushing these not into just needing a special use permit, but also a rezoning hearing.

This is totally unacceptable in my opinion. Requiring a rezoning would add at least six months to any development and plans on this kind of housing being built. If these CMs truly want to help with situations like the residents of Wintershaven who the city is trying to find housing for we need to make these facilities easier to build, not harder. This new Council has shown an aptitude to drive as much development as possible into a situation where it necessitates a rezoning hearing. This directly causes a shortage of housing, and in this case housing for seniors.

Where are we now?

The text change will come back to City Council for a 4th time at some point in the near future according to CM Mendell some sort of compromise is being worked out between the CMs that oppose removing the special use permit requirement. With several CMs openly discussing taking this to a rezoning, I’m concerned any compromise we end up with will only make building this housing harder. Meaning it will be more expensive due to limited supply.