Decatur Heights Residents Clash Over “Wellness Center”
Decatur Metro | October 19, 2009Both InDecatur and city commission candidate James Radford have posted extensive articles about last week’s meeting at Decatur Heights Baptist Church, regarding the “Peer Support and Wellness Center” at 444 Sycamore Drive in Decatur Heights.
At issue is whether the facility – which aids people with mental health problems – classifies as a “licensed personal care home”. If so, it can operate within a residential neighborhood (i.e. R60) without variance. When I first contacted the city’s planning director Amanda Thompson about this issue way back in May (after receiving a note from a resident in the district) she said that the city was still determining whether this was indeed the case.
However, in late June/early July, Thompson visited the facility and determined it did qualify as a “personal care home” for the following reasons…
- 1. A maximum of four people can spend the night and they are limited to 7 days before they have to leave
- 2. The house remains arranged and set up as a family home, non-institutional in nature
- 3. The onsite staff do not administer any type of medicine
- 4. You must be 18 and self-referred to enter into the house
- 5. The bedrooms each have one bed (not bunkbeds) and one closet. It was clear from the setup of the rooms that they were not designed to keep more than 1 person and I did not see personal items belonging to more than one person in each room
- 6. There were three “patient” bedrooms and one staff bedroom
- 7. There are no independent cooking facilities, it is a shared kitchen with staff supervision
- 8. There is a zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy
Since then, a group of residents in the neighborhood have countered the city’s determination, noting the large number of “drop-in visitors” at the facility. Thompson notes, “There are no regulations that prevent visitors to a house. The only way to prevent people from visiting this house during the day is to establish through financial or some other type of records that the wellness center is being paid to provide services to clients. Then it would likely be considered a business and that would not be allowed by the zoning ordinance regulations.” Thompson says that she will be meeting with the Georgia Mental Health Consumer Network on October 20th to go over their grant contract with the state and obtain more information.
In the meantime, the issue surrounding the center has ignited the neighborhood, pitting neighbors against each other. Reports from the Decatur Heights Baptist Church meeting as told by Radford and InDecatur make it sound like things were less than civil as neighbors took aim at each other from the usual local issues-bunkers of “we need to protect ourselves” / “we need to think more about others”.
In the late hours of the 2009 election season, both District 1 candidates have gotten knee-deep in the controversy. From a chronology of events put out by the neighborhood, incumbent Fred Boykin was involved with helping the neighborhood address this issue back in June and he attended last week’s meeting. Challenger James Radford also attended last week’s meeting and has since come out on the side of residents who are dissatisfied with the city’s response to the issue.
According to InDecatur, the issue will be brought up by residents at tonight’s city commission meeting. And while commissioners will certainly be listening to residents’ concerns, they will also have to be very wary of one other under-report element of the story. As noted by Thompson, “Under the federal Fair Housing Act, the city cannot discriminate against people with mental disabilities by prohibiting them from living in residential zoning districts.”
Latest from Decaturish
My nonprofit knows about this house and works with it, and and our advocates find it bizarre that people are so up in arms. The home itself should be a little more proactive and reassure these people that the residents and those going in for service are safe.
Wow, and way to take sides to curry votes without really getting both sides of an issue, Mr. Radford. Radford seems to do this a lot. I hope the good folks in that district remember that Fred Boykin has been a balanced and fair voice on the commission for years.
If the issue here is “we need to protect ourselves” v. fair housing laws (which protect everone) I am siding with the law and Fred Boykin.
Ms. Thompson is absolutely right that Fair Housing laws (and the Americans with Disabilities Act) prohibit discrimination against the mentally ill. As I understand it, the concern of these residents is not the presence of the mentally ill. The concern is that this home hosts upwards of 25 people daily, which is a use that clearly falls outside of the R-60 zoning law. If this was a “family personal care home,” licensed as such, that was dedicated to the care for a small number of mentally ill patients, it would fit within the zoning law.
I think a broader issue is that Decatur Heights residents feel that the facility was established without any notice, any opportunity for a public hearing, or any of the other procedural safeguards that come along with a variance request. The “determination” made by the City, that 444 Sycamore qualified as a “personal care home” came only AFTER the home had already been established. Therefore, it seems that there was no official inquiry into whether the proposed use fell within the zoning law prior to the facility being established.
The residents of Decatur Heights have a legitimate grievance here. Many have tried to paint these residents as discriminatory against the mentally ill. But this is an unfair caricature of their actual argument. The concern is with Decatur Heights being treated as a second-class citizen, and with non-conforming uses being hoisted onto the community without prior notice and without the sort of deference that other neighborhoods might enjoy.
Nelliebelle, I promise you that I do understand both sides of this issue, as my legal practice is dedicated to the enforcement of laws meant to prevent discrimination. A facially valid and neutral zoning law, enforced in a particular instance against a facility that happens to care for the mentally ill, is, on its face, non-discriminatory.
Here’s where I’m a bit confused James. Doesn’t Thompson state that it’s not yet known whether this facility is being “paid to provide service to clients” and only then is it outside the zoning law?
Also, when would the city have called a public hearing if they believed it was legal within the zoning law?
I’d also like to hear more about the deference that is received by other neighborhoods.
The Peer Wellness has not made any attempt to hide the fact that they are being funded by a grant from the state. In fact, it’s on the first page of their website, so the COD’s argument that they don’t know if this facility is being “paid to provide service to clients” is at best erroneous and at worst purposefully negligent. They know that they are being paid. That is simply not an issue. Peer Wellness has been incredibly transparent throughout this process.
The issue doesn’t lie with Peer Wellness, it lies with the COD who for some reason has been trying to keep people off the trail of this arrangement. Where is the letter from the state which indicates the classification of this program? The COD does not determine the classification of Personal Care Homes because they don’t establish or regulate them. That power belongs to the State. Amanda cannot make that determination. She can only get that direction from the State.
Why is she only now setting a meeting to meet with the State? Shouldn’t that have been done BEFORE trying to characterize the program? Or even once it was first brought to her attention by the neighborhood residents? Why all the feet dragging? Why the indifference?
BTW – Boykin has done little or nothing on this issue except put the matter back in the laps of the residents. And he found out in August.
Sorry I should have been a bit more clear…
What I believe COD is trying to determine is whether Peer Wellness is being paid to provide services to the “drop-in visitors”, which would make them more than just “visitors” and put the facility over the limit in terms of qualification as a “personal care home”.
Is that not correct?
I missed Mrs. Turner’s presentation in last week’s meeting, but my understanding is the operation is funded by a grant. If so, the organisation is being paid, but probably not by those being helped. Perhaps that makes it a non-profit instead of a business, and explains why it has been allowed to operate in a residential neighborhood without a business license from the city.
Personal care homes do not really require licenses, have very little oversight and can receive payment for those who live in them. I can open a personal care home in my house tomorrow and it is none of my neighbors’ business per the way state law works ( which is bogus for both the neighborhood and those in my care; the program that oversees the personal care homes is underfunded and understaffed to a ridiculous, sad point). I wouldn’t need a business license under state personal care home regs. There is registration with the state and compliance with state regulations, so the state ombudsman through he Division of Aging will know if this is a personal care home. The problem would lie in the drop ins and whether there is a fee for service and if that violates zoning. Two separate issues.
The city does not oversee personal care homes-the state does- and as far as I know city or neighborhood can’t tell someone they can’t have a qualifying personal care home,so all this talk of variances and public hearings just doesn’t apply if this place is operating as a personal care.
Here lies the crux of the problem. If you read the definition of a personal care home, and then read the activity list for this house, they are night and day. Personal care homes are limited to care for 2-6 people who stay in the home for an extended time. This facility has sees something like 25 people a day on average. Before we complained, the driveway looked like a bus station, with short buses stopping to pick up and drop off people causing traffic jams sometimes. In response to our complaints, the buses have stopped. The visitors just walk 3 blocks or so from the MARTA station. And, they’ve warned visitors not to loiter out near the street. But the level of activity, as judged from 8-16 blg blue trash bags for pickup every Monday morning, does not appear to have decreased any.
Legal-shmeagal definition disputes not withstanding, this sounds like you brought the offending behavior to their attention and they corrected it. Isn’t that the way neighborly relations are supposed to work? Communicating and working through disputes to mutual, congenial satisfaction?
If you don’t like loiterers and traffic snarls and, upon hearing it, they fix the problem, I don’t get what everybody’s so amped up about. It seems like they’re open to working things out.
OK, but does the Center get paid to help all 25 people a day or just the 6? As Thompson states, there are no restrictions on visitors to the house.
I understand that common sense would have one assume that the home was being used by more than just 6, but this isn’t common sense, it’s legislation.
At the meeting, one of the Decatur Heights residents who had looked into the matter said that the facility’s contract with the State required that they average a minimum number of 12 or so drop-in persons per day. The operator of the Peer Support Center, who I’d like to add was very gracious and completely honest with everyone at the meeting, did not dispute this characterization. If the facility’s contract requires that they allow drop-in visitors, then I would say that, yes, they are being paid to provide services to the drop-ins.
A Decatur Heights resident noted that there are additional requirements for a personal care home which require strict screening of the residents, careful documentation of their medical status, and notification of the police if any resident is missing for more than 30 minutes. The operator of the Peer Support Center said that her facility does not comply with any of these requirements as these requirements conflict with the purpose of the Center, which allows people to come and go as they please to seek services and support as they see fit. While this program provides important and needed services, the size of the facility and the lack of oversight suggest that it is not appropriately classified as a personal care home. For what it’s worth, the operator of the facilty stated flat out that her facility is not a personal care home.
Then what did Peer Wellness say when you talked to them.
I decided to quit arguing here as I cannot find anything in the state personal care home database.
http://167.193.144.216/facsearchs.asp
I mean anything in our zip code with this name. Do your own search!
I’m with Scott–if the facility responded effectively to specific complaints from neighbors, why the hostility? One of my theories: some people are always on the lookout for a chance to rail at the City, and assign nefarious motives to people–staff and Commissioners–who are just doing their jobs. Maybe a mistake was made, maybe not. But the level of anger described seems like a disproportionate response, especially when we have gang-bangers shooting innocent teens, careless/reckless drivers mowing down joggers, and the possibility of a lethal flu season around the corner.
The Peer Wellness program is funded by a grant, so chances are it won’t be around forever, regardless of how much good they are able to do. (And after studying their website, it sounds like they achieve a lot of good for a lot of people who need it desperately.)
Here’s hoping compassion and common sense carry the day.
Well, first of all, I disagree that any hostility was directed at the facility or the operator of the facility. I think there was anger at the city because there was the perception the city hadn’t been responsive.
It’s true that the facility has been responsive to the concerns of neighbors once concerns were brought to them. Also, the operators of the facility have been nothing but honest and helpful in responding to the neighbors’ questions. I heard a lot of people at the neighborhood meeting thanking the facility and its operator for being so responsive to concerns which could be addressed. Unfortunately, this isn’t a situation where some behavior can be changed to address others’ concerns. The nature and design of the Peer Support and Wellness Center conflicts with what is allowed under the R-60 zoning, which this neighborhood is zoned as. That is the crux of the neighborhood’s concerns.
R-60 zoning requires that personal care homes for the mentally ill be allowed. No public hearings or neighborhood approval is required. However, the definition of personal care homes contains many safeguards to address safety and traffic concerns. Personal care homes are limited to 6 residents. The residents must be screened, there must be careful documentation of the residents’ medical status, and the police must be notified if any resident is missing for more than 30 minutes. The operator of the Peer Support Center said that her facility does not comply with any of these requirements as these requirements conflict with the purpose of the Center, which allows people to come and go as they please to seek services and support as they see fit.
The city has apparently focused on the fact that the Center limits overnight guests to 6 persons, and has not addressed the fact that the Center serves up to 25 persons a day and does not comply with the other safeguards required of personal care centers.
Just an FYI on resident limits in a personal care home:
How many residents can I have in my home?
The number of residents you can have in your home is dependent on several factors. The home must provide a bathroom for every four residents and a tub/shower for every eight residents. The home must provide a living room, a dining area, a kitchen and a bedroom for all residents and any staff and family members who live in the home. The number of residents you can accommodate in each bedroom (up to a maximum of four residents) is based on the size of the bedroom (at least 80 square feet of useable floor space per resident). Closet and bathroom space is not included in the square footage requirement. The home must also have a fire inspection, and this inspection can also determine how many residents you can have. Local requirements may also restrict the number of residents you can have.
Here’s the state definition:
http://dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHS-ORS/menuitem.3ab193ac3b6d6a608e738510da1010a0/?vgnextoid=6b7e4548b73f1010VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD
Here are the GA DHR rules and regulations for personal care homes:
http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/page.cgi?g=DEPARTMENT_OF_HUMAN_RESOURCES%2FPUBLIC_HEALTH%2FRULES_AND_REGULATIONS_FOR_PERSONAL_CARE_HOMES%2Findex.html&d=1
The Reporting section requires that a facility report to the police if someone is missing longer than 30 minutes.
The Admission section requires strict screening of persons prior to admission to the home.
The Services section requires “watchful oversight” and a “daily awareness” of residents’ whereabouts.
The Peer Support and Wellness Center does not follow any of these requirements. As such, the community doesn’t believe it’s a personal care home, and the operator of the facility does not disagree.
From DH Dad:
“BTW – Boykin has done little or nothing on this issue except put the matter back in the laps of the residents. And he found out in August.”
This comment is incorrect.
The first meeting with residents to discuss 444 Sycamore Dr. was on 06/23/09. On 06/24/09 I contacted city staff and asked them to look into the issue. I have been to three meetings with members of the neighborhood and have exchanged a number of emails.
I pulled my calendar for June, July, August, September and October and created a timeline of significant activities for the period. During this time, the Commission considered the 21 acre DeVry annexation request, the bid for the master plan for intersection improvements at the RR crossings next to the High School and the Dairy Queen, the City School’s Reconfiguration Plans (Fifth Avenue) and turning over title of the Fifth Avenue property to the School System.
In addition, the Ponce Place Traffic Calming Study got started ( I am representing the Commission) and Assistant Active Living Director Greg White, parent volunteer Beth Thompson and I attended the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Annual Conference in Portland, OR. We were invited to give a presentation on Decatur’s successful SRTS program – I planned and created the PowerPoint.
In the meantime, I took a family summer vacation or two, worked at my business, and started my re-election campaign.
I also pulled the most recent email string on 444 Sycamore Dr. and quote this from my 09/15/09 email: “If y’all do not feel you are getting anywhere, we can see the Mayor or y’all can bring it before the City Commission and formally ask us to look into the issue.” I told folks from the start that this was an option. Residents did that at tonight’s City Commission meeting and the City Manager will handle the request. Since the matter is now under review, I do not feel it is a matter for me to discuss until it comes back before the City Commission.
I have, however, given copies of my timeline and email string to Dave Kell, Grace Ann Young (along with copies for 2 residents who did not attend tonight’s meeting}. I will be happy to share those documents with anyone who contacts me. I also gave a copy to James Radford.
One final comment. Mr. Radford has made a number of pronouncements on this blog and others about 444 Sycamore. He’s welcome to do that, but I would expect him to meet with the Planning Director and City Manager to hear their side of the story beforehand. So far he has failed to do that.
DM the title of this should be Decatur Residents, not DH Residents.
Or, “Politics-What is it good for?”