Denial of Group Home for Women in Recovery Outlined

Ron Wilshire

Published July 9, 2018 11:54 am

Denial of Group Home for Women in Recovery Outlined

CLARION, Pa. (EYT) — The reasons for the denial of a special exemption to operate a group home for women in recovery in a Commercial-1 Zone by the Clarion Borough Zoning Hearing Board were recently outlined in its formal decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law.

exploreClarion.com filed a right to know request with Clarion Borough and received the information last week. The original decision was made on May 15, 2018, and the complete document was signed on May 25, 2018, by Chairman David Sentner.

While the property in question at 515 Wood Street would qualify to have up to four residents on the second floor of the building, similar to those also in the commercial district on Main Street, the Board denied the request for a group home as stated in the application.

Jenna Jane Herbert was the applicant, and the property is owned by Anthony DeMaio. Herbert did not appeal the decision with the Court of Common Pleas with the time allotted.

The applicant testified that the probation office stated that it must be drug-free, alcohol-free, gun-free, and safe, but she did not provide a plan on how that would be accomplished, given that many of the women will be recovering from various forms of serious addictions, and many of the members would have been recently involved with the criminal justice system in various manners.

The group home would have the applicant as the on-site manager, but the applicant, who resides in Seneca, Pa., testified she will not live at the facility but will arrive there at 7:00 a.m. every day and will leave between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. to go home to Seneca, which is a substantial distance away.

The applicant stated that the group home facility would provide no services, but will provide assistance to the members of the group home by making referrals to different agencies that could provide services to members, or assist members, and help members to find the services they are seeking, such as employment in daycare.

The members of the group would be referred mostly by word of mouth and may include women who have been involved with the criminal justice system and went to re-integrate after leaving jail, halfway, and three-quarter houses, and/or on probation. Some of the women will have just been released from treatment facilities for addiction, and some women may be recovering from abusive relationships or may be referred by family members.

The permitted uses in the C-1 District are as follows: art studio, corporate offices, eating and drinking places, government offices, personal services, professional services and offices, retail, and theaters.

Excerpts from the lengthy ruling include the following:

A group home is not similar to those permitted in C-1.
It was revealed that the applicant stated that she does not hold a license to operate the group home, and it will not be supervised by a state licensed and regulator professional trained to deal with addiction recovery, mental health recovery, or any of the other issues/and or indicates that the group home itself will not be registered, licensed, or regulated by the state as a professional establishment. Additionally, although the applicant stated that she was going to be the on-site manager, she did not provide any evidence that she held any type of professional license.
The applicant clearly stated, through her application and through her testimony, that the purpose of the group home facility will be to accept women attempting to recover from a variety of serious conditions, including but not limited to: drug and alcohol addiction, mental health conditions (such as depression and anxiety), women in recovery as a result of abusive relationships, and also women who may be recovering from other unspecified matters or issues which have impacted negatively on their life.
The women would reside in the group home together, for up to two years, to receive assistance with integrating into society, ostensibly with the applicant, who will be the manager of the group home. The applicant was ambiguous as to the specific methods of programming she will use to accomplish these ends, but she will not live at the group home, instead — arriving at each morning and leave it for her own residence at night. The applicant did further testify that the women will also be charged with holding each other accountable in achieving recovery.
The board did note that the second floor of the building, which is being proposed as a group home, is permitted to be used as an upper-storage dwelling as a conditional use.
Additionally, the applicant established what she called a “non-profit” Limited Liability Company for the operation of the group home (the name of the LLC was not given a testimony or in the application), and the board finds that the group home would not be a dwelling as that term is defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has proposed a group home for women in recovery, many whom, by the testimony of the applicant, have serious conditions, such as drug addiction and will have very recently been involved with the criminal justice system. There’s no doubt that many women in recovery will proceed to improve their lives; however, it is likely that one or more of the group home members suffer a relapse, serious emotional difficulties, or some other problem associated with the condition which needs urgent and or specialized attention.
The board finds that the applicant did not provide adequate evidence of expertise in dealing with the myriad of problems associated with the many conditions a group call member will present with upon moving into the group home. The applicant did not indicate that she held any type of license for dealing with the conditions and or afflictions affecting the members, and she indicated that neither she nor an on-site manager would be present at all times. In fact, the applicant will reside in Seneca, Pa. Which is a substantial distance away from the group home, which distance would be a problem should emergency or crisis occurred with one or more of the group of members.
Therefore, the board finds that the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the proposed group home would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and Borough.