Shelter Guidelines / Planning Board
January 19th, 2011 Council Meeting
Overview
Last
January, the Town Council removed the 25-bed limit for homeless shelters that
existed in the town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. During this discussion, two council members requested the
Planning Board study siting requirements for new social service
facilities. The request was made in
response to citizen opposition of the site for the new men’s homeless shelter
and because there is currently no specific documentation for siting homeless
shelters and other at-risk social services in Chapel Hill.
The process for siting new social services like a men’s shelter is the
same process for any development, a Special Use Permit (SUP). A written plan
(in addition to the SUP process) for siting new social service facilities would
provide “rules of the road”, giving the community an understanding of where
services can be built while providing valuable information to developers who
plan to build new social service facilities.
A
Planning Board subcommittee met periodically last year to create a document. After
eight meetings, about fourteen hours of discussion and review, the Planning
Board subcommittee produced a 1.5 page document called Shelter Guidelines.
On
October 18th the subcommittee sent the Shelter Guidelines to the
Planning Board and on November 16th the planning board sent the Shelter Guidelines to the Town Council. The Town Council discussed the Shelter
Guidelines on January 10th 2001.
Video with Comments from November 2nd Planning Board Meeting
Video with Comments from November 16th Planning Board Meeting
Herald Sun Column and Chapel Hill News Column
Watch this youtube video for an overview of the major issues presented at the 11/16/2010 Planning Board Meeting.
The shelter guidelines still suffer from the same issues documented for the Oct/Nov Planning Board Meetings.
The guidelines that the planning board amended on November 16th has finally been released on January 6th.
Here are the most significant issues with the current shelter guidelines:
- They still do nothing to resolve the problems documented in 2010
- They fail to acknowledge that clustering at-risk services are undesirable. If they use the proposed formula, then all at risk facilities will continue to be encouraged in Homestead Park area of town.
- They fail to provide remedies for shutting down facilities which result in negative impacts (no "Teeth")
- They allow 25 shelters in one square mile without even notifying the town council that other at-risk facilities exist in the area.
- They leave sex offenders out in the cold
- They fail to require public criteria and siting process for facilities which receive
- They fail to define shelters properly in the land use management ordinance
- They continue to permit new facilities and expansion of facilities in the "Homestead Road At Risk Campus"