-
Supporters of the Family Promise rezoning request held a prayer circle Monday at the new West Kytle Street property prior to Monday’s city council meeting. (Photo/Ashley Blair)
The Cleveland City Council delayed a decision on a rezoning request by Family Promise of White & Habersham on property planned to serve as the nonprofit’s operations center for its mission to combat family homelessness.
Seating was full in the City Council meeting room Dec. 6, many of it occupied by Family Promise supporters who met in the hour earlier for a prayer circle at the property at 403 W. Kytle St. Their hope was for an approval to allow the organization to proceed with relocating to the former home site purchased in September. The group has noted moving from the unincorporated area of the county into Cleveland would provide a centralized location,
The property is currently zoned B-2 highway commercial, with a request to change that to R-2 multifamily residential to allow Family Promise to use the building as temporary housing for families vetted for its programs. If approved, three homeless families with children will have a place to stay while they receive support from Family Promise. The building would also serve as a home base for their volunteers and offices where they offer classes and diversion assistance to families and provide other services to prevent homelessness.
Family Promise presented their proposal before the city planning and zoning commission in October, but the vote to recommend approval or denial to the City Council deadlocked.
Monday’s council hearing opened with a presentation from Sean Sosebee, Family Promise treasurer.
“The Family Promise vision is to ensure that every family has a path to safe, affordable housing and the resources to achieve self-sustainability and lasting independence,” she said.
Others members of the public shared support for rezoning.
Micheal Fisher, the street outreach director for Ninth District Opportunity, talked about the number of people close to homelessness and the need for services like Family Promise.
“Most families that we see that populate the unemployment numbers in White County, the numbers that show how close they are to poverty and how close they are to starting that death spiral would astound most people, how many are that close to being in the homeless situation,” he said.
During the public comment period, City Councilman Kevin Stanley questioned members of Family Promise on whether or not they were told there wouldn’t be a problem getting the property rezoned.
“So you didn’t ask anybody that was involved in the transaction?” asked Stanley.
“Our board, unfortunately, the folks that were moving towards this and so excited about it did not have much experience in this process. The description of the property led us to believe it was suitable for us ... we were naive in the process and that’s why the cart, if you will, ended up in front of the horse. And we do apologize for that,” Sosebee replied.
Stanley followed up with a question for Sosebee and Family Promise Executive Director Martie Brooks.
“Did anybody on the council tell you it would not be a problem with this zoning?” he said.
Both Shore and Sosebee said no.
“Nobody on the council told you? Because I’ve been told otherwise, is the reason why I asked that question,” Stanley said.
“I think that we talked with a few people who knew both on the planning and zoning commission and also on the council, just making sure that, kind of understanding the purposes here,” Sosebee said.
“Who did you speak with on the council?” Stanley inquired.
“I am not sure that without a lawyer present I should answer those questions ... I’m a little intimidated if you will,” Sosebee said.
Sosebee then asked what would have been a better way for Family Promise to approach the purchase and rezoning.
Stanley drew on his experience as a mortgage consultant in his explanation.
“When people purchase a property they try to inquire about said property to make sure that what you’re wanting to do with the property is liable. It could be your subdivision, your covenant, it could be a number of things that keeps you from doing what needs to be done,” he said. “So if it had been brought to my attention by multiple people that it had been communicated to y’all that this re-zoning would not be a problem, that I think had y’all known and had the correct information at the very beginning this right here, it could have been alleviated.”
When the council entered into deliberation, City Councilwoman Rebecca Yardley suggested a motion of letting the B-2 commercial zoning stand with a variance for multifamily residential use. Her motion included letting that variance stay in place until the time in which the property is sold and that it meet any safety and building codes that is applicable for multiple families.
Councilwoman Nan Bowen agreed with the suggestion of variance, however, she suggested her own motion stipulating that Family Promise apply for variance to be reviewed by the planning and zoning board and that has conditions such that health and safety concerns be addressed. Stanley and Bradley Greene agreed with Bowen’s motion, however, they did not vote on this as it supplants the current rezoning application and causes a months-long delay.
From there, Greene motioned to table the issue for next month’s meeting, set for Jan. 10, to allow Family Promise time to meet with the planning and zoning board. The motion passed in a 3-1 vote. Yardley voted against the motion to reflect her belief that the issue should not have been tabled and that action should have been taken Monday evening.
City Administrator Tom O Bryant later added that the vote was delayed to allow for the planning and zoning meeting to be called and advertised before the January meeting.
The rezoning item was on the City Council’s November agenda but was tabled then to allow Family Promise more time to prepare a presentation.