Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission OKs variance to reopen special residential facility at 5940 NW 19th Ct., limits use to special‑needs youth
Summary
After staff opposition and neighborhood concern, the Lauderhill City Commission voted 5‑0 to approve a variance to the city's 1,200‑foot separation rule for special residential facilities, allowing a previously operating facility to reopen under a recorded covenant limiting residents to special‑needs youth ages 3–18 and up to 7–14 beds.
The Lauderhill City Commission on May 12 granted a variance allowing a special residential facility to operate at a property that previously hosted the same use but is within the city's required 1,200‑foot separation distance from another licensed facility.
The quasi‑judicial application (Order No. 25005115) concerned a 0.17‑acre site at or near 5940 Northwest 19th Court. The applicant, represented by attorney Hope Calhoun and owner Clarence Woods (Ambassador Investment and Realty LLC), asked the commission to waive the separation requirement so the property could resume operation as a state‑licensed residential facility providing care for residents.
City staff recommended denial, saying the applicant had not shown that it satisfied the established variance criteria and noting a history in the area of clustered group‑living facilities that the city had previously sought to decentralize. Staff told the commission the separation requirement exists to reduce concentrated impacts on neighborhoods where multiple group homes had caused repeated police responses.
Applicants told the commission the parcel previously operated as an assisted living/special residential facility and that the lapse in certain zoning paperwork — a 45‑day zoning verification window the applicant said had been missed — created the current need for a variance. The applicant said the earlier operation was lawfully established and that the current owners had engaged with city staff in good faith. Attorney Calhoun argued the variance criteria were met because the property is uniquely suited to the use, the hardship was not self‑created and the requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use.
During the hearing the applicants revised their proposed operating model: they told the commission the facility would serve special‑needs young adults and children with autism and related disabilities, with an age range beginning at approximately 3 years and extending to 18 (and to older ages if state licensing required it). The applicant said it would partner with Raina Group Homes, an operator that described more than a decade of experience working with children and youth with developmental disabilities, as the provider and operator of the residence.
Commissioners questioned whether changing the population to young people with autism would reduce calls for service and neighborhood impacts. The applicant and Raina Group Homes representatives described training, behavioral supports, on‑site staffing (including 1‑to‑1 care where needed), cameras and nurse oversight. Commissioners asked for and received a commitment that operational conditions would be recorded against the property to tie the use to the facility and to limit a future owner from converting the site to a different category of state‑licensed residential use without returning to the commission.
After debate — including staff reiteration that the application did not meet their recommended variance criteria — the commission approved the variance with conditions. The motion (moved by Commissioner Dunn and seconded by Commissioner Campbell) included direction that the applicant execute a recorded declaration restricting the facility to serve children and young adults with developmental disabilities/autism, limit the facility classification to a category of 7–14 residents (city code category 2), and require the recorded covenant run with the land and be enforceable; the motion also authorized staff to work with the applicant on appropriate monitoring and reporting conditions.
The vote to approve the variance was 5‑0. Commissioners said the recorded covenant and the operator commitments to on‑site controls and staff training were critical to their willingness to grant the variance despite initial staff opposition.
The hearing record includes testimony from the applicants, the proposed operator (Raina Group Homes), staff reports, and questions from commissioners addressing operational staffing, medical and behavioral supports, age ranges and how the recorded restriction would be enforced if the property were later sold.
