Comments to this post are now closed. A copy of the open letter Soren and Grace Ann posted as a comment here is posted at the Decatur Heights blog at DecaturHeights.com. Please comment on it there, as I'm doing all new posting on this subject there, where it belongs. I will post a link to any new posts there here.
This matter is not going to fade away quietly.
Several Decatur Heights neighbors spoke out regarding the City Managers position on 444 Sycamore Drive (see previous post) at last evening's Commissioners meeting.
One person who was paid $41K for consultations by the organization spoke for it.
Documents obtained by a neighbor showed the operation is paid sizable amounts by the state.
We learned the name of a DH neighbor who wrote the "argument" attachment in the previous post, which the Mayor described as "obviously written by a lawyer."
Several commissioners said they'd just received the report today, and might want to discuss it some more later. But, the Mayor noted the Commission might not discuss it nor vote on it in public again. He advised the DH neighbors to not let anything they heard in this meeting affect whether or not they appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
This post will be expanded later in the morning.
Grace Ann Young's comments are presented (with her permission) in the continuation
Dear Commissioners and All, Having reviewed the attached report and final summation from Ms. Merriss that the Peer Support and Wellness Center shall continue to operate as a family group home in our R-60 zoned neighborhood, I am dismayed, of course. It appears that the City Manager and/or zoning administrator has again disregarded the more specific concerns and factual details that are glaring evidence that this program is not appropriate for any R-60 zoned neighborhood. Furthermore, it does not even come close to being a 'family personal care home' based on serving up to 25 'visitors' a day, of which the program is paid $338,000, as long as it maintains at least 12 daily participants, as well as the 3 respite beds. Of course, this decision will be appealed through the appropriate channels. It's astonishing, to say the least, that once again, the facts of this case are simply being disregarded, in spite of the many efforts to inform the City of the very specifics of this case, that supposedly they were not aware of, at the time of allowing it to operate as a 'family personal care home.' It can not rest with this decision and it will not. It is absolutely imperative to me that I can be assured that the City of Decatur can not and will not so blatantly disregard the zoning requirements of our neighborhood again. Instead of taking the time and effort to truly study this case, the City has so quickly assumed that the State's very general and nonspecific appeal to allow the program to remain is a satisfactory explanation. Interestingly, the State, in fact, gave absolutely not factual documentation as to why the program can remain, with no mention whatsoever, of the specific concerns that have been reported over and over again. Furthermore, the Director's response as to it's being a family-type residence, is simply inadequate, and again does not address the specific concerns that have been brought to the City's attention heretofore. And, lastly, the included 'legal research' provided by the Director, supposedly from a Decatur Heights resident, is very interesting in that there is no name attached or further identifying information regarding professional status, etc. I am very eager to obtain legal counsel in regards to this particular document, as well as the overall issue. For your information, again, I would like to state that I am a retired Florida licensed mental health professional with lifelong evidence of experience and advocacy for the mentally ill. This program, as designed, is simply not appropriate for any R-60 zoned neighborhood. Please take the time to truly understand what is happening here. It is not about discrimination whatsoever but it is about assuring that the participants' security and well-being are being addressed, as are the neighborhood residents' security and well being. Once again, I am appealing to the City Commission to not take this report at face value, because I can assure you, that I am not taking it as final. Grace Ann Young
