Planning commission denies Empower Her shared‑housing application, finding use prohibited in R‑4

The Middletown Planning Commission voted on Dec. 10 to deny a conditional‑use application for a four‑bedroom shared‑housing operation at 1328 Woodlawn Ave., after staff and commissioners concluded the proposed use more closely matched the city’s definition of a prohibited rooming/rooming house than a permitted transitional housing use.

Staff framed the case as a conditional‑use application for transitional housing, noting the Middletown development code requires licensing or a verified affidavit when state licensing is not applicable and sets a 1,500‑foot buffer between transitional homes. Claire Fetters told the commission no certified affidavit or evidence of licensure had been presented, and that some use‑specific findings—including supervision, service provision and buffer requirements—must be satisfied for approval.

Applicants Amber Kelly and Jessica Turner, who identified themselves as co‑founders/operators of Empower Her Living Solutions and as local shelter workers, told commissioners the property currently functions as private shared housing with four independent adults in private bedrooms, no on‑site supervision or mandated services, and standard lease arrangements. They emphasized the model is property‑management based, not a program or facility, and said residents pay rent and maintain independent lives.

Commissioners asked about operation details, screening, whether the operator provides services or supervision, referral pathways and occupancy limits. Staff pointed to the development‑code definition of a rooming house as a private dwelling unit where rooms are leased to unrelated individuals with shared kitchen/bathroom facilities and noted that a rooming‑house use is prohibited in the R‑4 district. Several commissioners observed that the existence of individual lease agreements and shared‑room arrangements suggested a rooming‑house classification rather than a single housekeeping unit.

After discussion, the commission moved to deny the conditional‑use application on the basis that the evidence before the board demonstrated the use fell within a prohibited category under current zoning. Several commissioners encouraged the applicants to explore alternative multifamily or other zoning districts where the housing model could be appropriate.

The denial means the property may not continue in the proposed configuration under the R‑4 zoning without a code change, approval in a different zoning district, or an alternative lawful use.