Commission denies request to expand ‘Living Well’ assisted‑living home after neighbors cite safety, parking and emergency access problems

The commission recommended denial of Charlene Livers’ proposal to expand an existing assisted‑living home at 2600 Shore Haven Drive from eight to 14 residents, following a lengthy hearing in which dozens of neighbors described persistent parking and safety problems in the narrow residential streets surrounding the facility.

Charlene Livers, the operator, said the expansion would add a modest 1,272‑square‑foot addition, two on‑site parking spaces and one additional staff member, and that the home has operated for five years serving adults with disabilities. “This is not an experiment — this is an existing home with an existing record of service,” Livers said. She asked commissioners to approve the conditional use permit to serve six more residents.

Neighbors — many of whom live on Back Cove Road and Shore Haven Drive — told the commission they regularly see vehicles parked on narrow shoulders and that ambulances have been delayed by parked cars during at least one recent emergency. Multiple speakers described a school bus stop at a blind curve, frequent vendor and visitor traffic, and long‑standing overflow parking that they said has worsened when the facility is in use.

Planning staff outlined the procedural options: group homes for up to eight residents are treated as residential under state and local code; larger group homes require a conditional use permit and assessment of neighborhood compatibility. Traffic and public works staff told the commission that portions of Shore Haven and Back Cove include existing no‑parking zones and that Public Works would place additional no‑parking signage on Back Cove where needed, but commissioners said signage alone did not allay their concerns about narrow streets and emergency access.

Several commissioners said they empathized with the need for small assisted‑living homes in the city but concluded the proposed increase would exceed what the immediately adjacent streets can safely absorb. Commissioner Kemp described multiple conversations with residents and reviewed photographs of parked vehicles and the constrained carriageway. “Taking the option for a pump station or other infrastructure off the table by intensifying private development is not in the public interest,” he said in explaining his opposition — a comment reflecting concern about cumulative infrastructure strain across several agenda items.

The commission voted 7–4 to recommend denial. Commissioners who supported denial cited unresolved neighborhood safety and parking impacts; commissioners who supported approval emphasized the applicant’s service record and noted the possibility of conditions to limit or manage parking. The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council with the hearing record.

Provenance: Topic introduced at SEG 2035 (staff summary) and heard across public testimony segments continuing through the commission discussion and vote (SEG 2035–SEG 10381).