ZONING HEARING BOARD
MINUTES –
A special meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board of the
Those present:
Zoning Hearing Board: Barbara Kirk, Chairman
David Malinowski, Secretary
Paul Bamburak, Member
Greg Caiola, Alternate Member
Others: Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning
Robert Habgood, Code Enforcement Officer
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
Allen Toadvine, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor Liaison
Absent: Rudolph Mayrhofer, Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chair
APPEAL #05-1311, APPEAL #05-1312, APPEAL
#05-1313 –
Mr. Regis Champ was present with Bernard Schneider, attorney. Ms. Kirk stated the
matter was first heard on
she had the opportunity to review the Minutes from that Hearing. She asked if there was
any concern with her continuing to hear the testimony, and Mr. Schneider stated they did
not have any concern. Ms. Kirk stated based on notes she reviewed, it appears that there
were two issues brought to the attention of the Board one of which being the Board’s
jurisdiction over a denial of a Building Permit by the Zoning Officer. She understands
that it was the Board’s position at that time that they had no jurisdiction over that issue
and the Board was going to hear the rest of the Appeal. Mr. Schneider agreed. Ms. Kirk
stated the Board also accepted Mr. Champ as an expert witness with respect to residential
care for mentally-retarded and other physically-disabled persons, and Mr. Schneider
agreed.
Ms. Kirk noted the presence of Christopher DeGrezia, Esquire, present on behalf of
several residents. Mr. DeGrezia stated when they scheduled the meeting for this evening,
he raised an objection to the date as their experts were unable to be present. As part of
that request, they would ask that a transcript of the proceedings tonight be supplied to
them at the Applicant’s cost. Mr. Schneider stated they have no cause to bear the cost for
his transcript. He stated the Hearing date was suggested among the parties and while
Mr. DeGrezia did raise an objection, the Chairman made a decision that the meeting
would be held this evening. Ms. Kirk stated if Mr. DeGrezia wants a copy of the
transcript, he may order one from the Court Reporter as his own expense. Mr. DeGrezia
stated tonight was not the next scheduled meeting and it was actually July 5. Ms. Kirk
noted because of inclement weather,
Mr. Schneider was unable to fly out of
be present that evening and the matter was continued. There was a written request
submitted by Mr. Schneider’s associate that the Board read into the record on July 5 and
accepted as Exhibit E-5.
Ms. Kirk asked if it is
three properties does not qualify as a nursing home or that they do qualify as a nursing
home in which a Special Exception would be permitted and that Variances would be
needed for dimensional requirements for a nursing home. Mr. Schneider was unable to
locate a copy of his submissions but felt their position is that they are not a nursing home
under the definition in the Township Ordinance. He stated they are also not an
intermediate-care facility as defined in the Ordinance. He stated their residents are not
convalescing and are not ill. Section 200-68(26) was noted. He stated they are not a
skilled facility or an intermediate-care facility. He stated his argument is that the
Township Ordinance in effect incorporates the definition and regulations under which the
State operates because in order to be a nursing home they have to be a skilled or an
intermediate-care facility licensed
by the
there is a difference between an intermediate-care facility and an intermediate-care
facility for the mentally retarded. He stated they are neither a skilled facility nor an
intermediate-care facility. He stated they do not provide convalescent care and they do
not provide it by reason of age, chronic illness, or infirmity. Mr. Schneider stated there is
no infirmity in mental retardation. Ms. Kirk asked if it is their position that the proposed
use is a matter of right under the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Schneider asked for and was
provided a copy of their Application. He stated they have a single-family detached
dwelling and they believe that under the Fair Housing Act and under the Township
Ordinance with a reasonable accommodation that they can have it; alternatively, if they
do fall under the definition of nursing home, they are a nursing home and they need either
a reasonable accommodation or a Variance.
Ms. Kirk stated it appears that their first argument is that this proposed use is a use as a
matter of right under the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Schneider disagreed, and stated it is a
matter of reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act which is not entirely a
matter of right although it is close to a matter of right.
Mr. Champ was asked if
Road, and Mr. Champ stated they do. He stated they also own 2100 N. Crescent
Boulevard and 1110 Big Oak Road. Mr. Champ was shown a copy of the deed for 1110
Big
Exhibit A-26. Mr. Schneider asked if
2100 N. Crescent Boulevard or
Exhibit A-27 was marked which is the copy of the Settlement Sheet at which Allegheny
is the copy of the Settlement Sheet
at which
Mr. Koopman and Mr. DeGrezia.
Mr. Koopman stated while he has not had an opportunity to review these documents, he
has no objection that they be
introduced to show that
holds title and that the purchase price is as shown in the documents. Mr. Schneider stated
he is not offering them for any other purpose. Mr. DeGrezia had no objection to these
being introduced into evidence.
Mr. Champ was asked to describe the clients who
reside at
varying degrees of mental retardation. He stated one individual is moderately-retarded
and five are profoundly-retarded. They also have some additional medical complications
including cerebral palsy, seizure conditions, and may have an inability to feed
themselves. They would need total care with regard to dressing, feeding, and activities of
daily living. Mr. Schneider asked if any of the residents are ambulatory, and Mr. Champ
stated five of them need a wheelchair, and one is ambulatory.
At the 2100 N. Crescent Boulevard address, Mr. Champ stated there will be six females.
One is moderately-retarded, one has severe mental retardation, and the remaining have
profound mental retardation. Some have cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and all would
need continual assistance with activities of daily living. Five of the women are non-
ambulatory and use a wheelchair. One is ambulatory.
At
retardation, one is moderately-retarded, and four have profound mental retardation. All
of them are ambulatory. Some do have seizure disorder and some other minor medical
issues. He stated this group functions a little bit higher but still needs supervision or
some assistance with dressing and feeding.
There was discussion on activities of daily living. Mr. Champ stated this includes
bathing, eating, dressing, getting prepared to go to work/school, and going out on trips,
etc. He stated the residents at these homes would need help with all of these activities.
Mr. Schneider asked if any of the residents have any known dangerous propensities, and
Mr. Champ stated they do not. He stated they have never been convicted of a crime and
do not have any behaviors problems.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 4 of 27
Mr. Champ was asked what kind of information
determine if a client is suitable for residential living in a typical neighborhood.
Mr. Champ stated the analysis is done by an inter-disciplinary team which includes
medical staff, physical-therapy staff, occupational-therapy, social service, program staff,
the families, the clients themselves, and an outside advocate if they have one. The
criteria is derived from the type of house, the neighborhood, what is available, and how
much care these people need. He stated these are not people who are critically or
chronically ill, and they do not require constant hospitalization. He stated they then
consider which people could live together in this type of home.
Mr. Champ was asked the ages of the people they plan to have live in these residences,
and Mr. Champ stated they are from the early 20s to the mid or late 40s.
Mr. Schneider asked for an explanation of the circumstances
which led to
he was asked to attend a meeting with board members from a non-profit organization
called Greenwich Services, Inc. which is a provider of services for those with mental
retardation. He stated they had a transition in their management staff and had some
additional financial difficulties and had consulted with the State and County about getting
help for their organization. He gave them some suggestions as to what they could do, and
they came back shortly thereafter and asked if
their organization. He noted Allegheny had done this in the past taking over
organizations that were either failing financially or had lost their license. Mr. Champ
stated because the financial condition of their facility was so poor, Allegheny did not
merge, but agreed to enter into a consulting arrangement to try to get their program,
policies, and procedures in order, and look into their financial condition to see if there
was some way to work out a solution to their financial problems. He stated they took
over in June 3, 2004 and began assessing the entire organization including the clients,
financial condition, condition of the program, and the condition of the physical plants.
He stated they had an eighty-four bed facility and thirteen small group homes. They also
have life-sharing programs which is similar to a foster placement where a family would
take one of the clients into their home. They had approximately thirteen of that type of
placement. He stated the problem they had was with the eighty-four bed facility which
was an ICF MR facility (Intermediate-Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded) which is
funded through Title 19 Medicaid Program. He stated this funding is 55% Federal, and
45% State. He stated the physical plant was an old converted building that had been run
by the Diocese as a care facility which had been abandoned many years ago. He stated
and the funds to renovate it made it clear that it was not worthwhile to repair it. He stated
the other issue was that under the new policies in the State
of
Federal Government, they really do not support large facilities; and they would prefer
that those beds be converted into small community environments such as the ones they
purchased in
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 5 of 27
Mr. Champ was asked if the State asked Allegheny to come up with a plan to deal with
the clients at
the State as they do the licensing, and they knew the problems with the existing facility.
They also hold the purse strings for the program. Mr. Champ stated they considered
keeping the facility including the cost of repairs, and the State indicated they would not
support this type of expense. Mr. Champ stated after they looked at the building, they did
not feel it was safe to stay in the building. They then submitted a plan for community
dispersal. They were told that whatever plan was submitted it needed to be Budget
neutral. He stated Budgets are done one year in advance and they knew how much was
available each year for these programs
had been approved for the eighty-four beds, and the State wanted them to submit a
proposal that fit into that number. The policy of the State is that any new facilities that
are developed through ICF MR or other types of funding would be no more than four
beds, and they tried to keep it within that policy. He stated this is not a regulation – it is a
policy guideline. Mr. Champ stated in this case to go from eighty-four beds to four-bed
facilities for that same amount of money, it would not work out financially.
Mr. Koopman objected noting that this is a financial conclusion, and Mr. Champ is not an
accountant.
Ms. Kirk overruled.
Ms. Kirk stated she recalls that prior testimony indicated that there was a facility closed
in
these three properties as a way to relocate these residents.
A copy of the proposal that was submitted to the State dated 10/5/04 was marked as
Exhibit A-29. Mr. Toadvine noted this is a five-page document.
Mr. Schneider asked of the proposals submitted to the State – the four-bed homes, five-
bed homes, and six-bed homes, which proposal did the State accept. Mr. Champ stated
the State accepted the six-bed home proposal. Exhibit A-30 was marked, and
Mr. Champ stated this is the Agreement that they enter into with the State dated 11/15/04.
Mr. Schneider asked how many clients will be housed at the three homes, and Mr. Champ
stated six will reside at each home since this is what the State required them to do under
the Agreement. Mr. Schneider asked if the State would have funded the project if they
did not have six residents in each home, and Mr. Champ stated they would not.
Mr. Koopman objected, and Ms. Kirk overruled.
Mr. Schneider asked how long six residents will be residing in these homes.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 6 of 27
Mr. Koopman objected unless there is foundation as this would involve something that is
supposed to happen in the future. He stated his objection is based on whether there is
any basis on this witness’s knowledge as to this. Ms. Kirk stated she will allow the
testimony.
Mr. Schneider asked how long there will be six people in each of the homes. Mr. Champ
stated under their Agreement with the State effective July 1, 2006, they may begin to take
two people out of two homes each year for seven years. This will then reduce them to
four beds and they will open one more four bed home. Therefore over a seven year
period unless the State gets additional funds to allow them to do it quicker, all the homes
under this Agreement will be reduced to four beds. Mr. Schneider asked how many
homes
Mr. Champ stated they will open fourteen.
They have located some of these in other
Municipalities other than
agreement with the State when particular homes in particular Municipalities will be
reduced from four to six, and Mr. Champ stated they have one agreement with one
Municipality as they made an agreement with the neighbors in one Municipality who
were not objecting to the homes as much as they were to the number of clients, and they
agreed with that neighborhood that the first home that would be reduced would be that
location. Mr. Schneider asked if any of the other houses have been specifically identified
to be reduced at a particular time, and Mr. Champ stated they have not.
Mr. Schneider stated in the proposal through the State they had a purchase price for the
houses listed at $585,000 and he asked how they arrived at this number. Mr. Champ
stated they had a projected Budget and they called a number of Real Estate companies to
determine the average cost for a house with a certain square footage. He stated they need
space for the six clients as well as for the house parents. Based on what they were told,
they prepared a projection and put in so much money for a house. Each of the fourteen
homes did cost a different amount of money. He stated they also have to consider the
cost of renovations. He stated they need to meet a number of Codes – Life Safety Code
from the State, a UCC Code locally, install sprinklers, heat and smoke detecting systems
that are electronically interconnected and monitored to a Fire or Police State, adaptive
bathrooms, adaptive hallways, adaptive doorways, etc. to meet the needs of the clients.
Mr. Champ stated the renovations at the
$194,000, at N. Crescent they will be approximately
$119,000, and at the
property they will be approximately $40,000.
Mr. Schneider asked if they have determined the cost of a building
in
Township which has five acres of land.
Mr. Koopman objected to the testimony as this is testimony as to Real Estate values in
within Mr. Champ’s area that he has been qualified as an expert.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 7 of 27
Mr. Schneider asked if Mr. Champ asked the Real Estate broker to find all open listings
in
Mr. Champ stated he did. He was provided with print-outs of all of the properties in
A-31, A-32, A-33, and A-34. Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Schneider is submitting all of the
listings that were given to
available in
four of them. Mr. Koopman objected. Ms. Kirk asked why they are being submitted.
Mr. Schneider stated as part of their request for a reasonable accommodation, they are
entitled to a reasonable accommodation under one or two basis – one is that it is not
financially feasible for them to meet the requirements. He stated the Township’s
requirement for a nursing home is a property of at least five acres, and the prices shown
on the listings will show that this not financially feasible for them Mr. Koopman stated
he objects to the admission of what is apparently items from multiple listings or some
other source that were given to him by a Real Estate broker, as this would be at least
double hearsay. Mr. DeGrezia joined in this objection since they have no ability to cross
examine a Realtor. Mr. Schneider stated he plans to have the Realtor present at a later
meeting and was putting these Exhibits in as part of Mr. Champs’ testimony to explain
their need for a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Kirk suggested that he have Mr. Champ
testify as to the number of homes that were available and the Realtor can testify as to the
listings. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Champ asked how many homes were available that
met the five acre requirement, and Mr. Champ stated there were four. Mr. Schneider
asked the price ranges on these homes. Mr. Koopman objected again subject to the
representation that the Broker will be in to testify. Ms. Kirk allowed testimony as to what
Mr. Champ understood, and Mr. Champ stated he understood them to be between
$700,000 to $900,00 homes and the State would not finance these. Mr. Koopman
objected, and Ms. Kirk overruled.
Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Champ to explain to the Board what the benefits are to
stated the benefit would be the difference between living in an eighty-four bed institution
that is falling down and living in a beautiful home. He stated in addition in the small
homes, the living areas are totally different than a large institution and the care is much
more consistent with staffing patterns considerably higher. He stated in a typical
institution the staffing pattern for direct care is one to eight. The staffing patterns in the
home setting would never be less than two staff people at all times so that it would be one
to three at the homes. He stated when they reduce it to four beds, the staffing pattern
would be two people to four. Mr. Champ added that they have the ability in the homes to
integrate people into community activities such as getting everyone out to Church each
Sunday. He stated each of the homes have their own transportation; and while they do
this in the larger facilities, they cannot do so to the extent that they can at the group
homes. He stated the trend is now to downsize facilities to group homes.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 8 of 27
Mr. Malinowski asked if this could not also be said for every nursing home and it would
be better for all the people to live in a four to six bed facility in a residential
neighborhood. Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Malinowski asked why this is a specific hardship
to Allegheny as opposed to any other nursing home. Mr. Schneider stated this is not
offered for hardship but is offered for reasonable accommodation to show that there is a
benefit to the client by living in these residences. Mr. Malinowski stated the Application
indicated that they wanted to be described as and use the property as a nursing home and
the dimensional requirements among other things inflict unnecessary hardship on
Allegheny as opposed to any other nursing care facility. Mr. Schneider stated this would
go to a dimensional Variance that he has asked for and he will offer future testimony on
this through the Realtor showing a lack of ability to have it. He is currently directing
testimony to the reasonable accommodation. Mr. Malinowski stated the reason they are
present is for the Variance. He stated the purview of the Board is to grant a Variance or
not grant a Variance and not be involved in the reasonable accommodation as it is not
within their purview. Mr. Schneider stated it is within their purview or they are in
violation of the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Schneider stated the Township has a duty to
provide a procedure under which they can request reasonable accommodation, and the
procedure is a validity challenge. If they cannot get a reasonable accommodation, then
the Ordinance is invalid. He stated they have a duty, if they can prove a need for a
reasonable accommodation, under the Fair Housing Act to give it to them. He stated it is
very similar to a Conditional Use or a Special Exception. He stated they would have to
meet the standards which are very minimal – one being a financial hardship to Allegheny
Township has a duty to give them reasonable accommodation. Under the MPC, this does
fall within the purview of the Zoning Hearing Board.
Ms. Kirk asked if Mr. Schneider has submitted into evidence any portions of the Fair
Housing Act dealing with the reasonable accommodation for such a facility.
Mr. Schneider stated he has not but he could get it before them. He stated he was
expecting to have to write a brief and has written briefs at other localities and could get
this information for the Board. He stated he could also send in a copy with the brief.
Ms. Kirk stated he did submit copies of all Sections of the Zoning Ordinance and she
feels it would be beneficial to the Board if they had the Section of the Fair Housing Act
dealing with reasonable accommodation request. Mr. Schneider stated he submitted the
Sections of the Ordinance since if he does not get reasonable accommodation at this
level, he will have to go to
The Ordinance Sections are evidence that will be relevant in
order to prove an Ordinance, he must put it into evidence. He stated he would agree to
provide the Sections of the Fair Housing Act to the Board.
Mr. Schneider asked if the clients have more opportunities to make decisions for
themselves in a group home as opposed to a large institution such as the eighty-four bed
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 9 of 27
involved in every decision. He stated in large institutions choices are severely limited in
terms of what is available and how often they can experience community activities.
Mr. Schneider asked if residents ever get a choice as to what will be served for dinner at a
large institution. Mr. Champ stated other than a specific medically required situation that
would be determined by a physician, it is possible, but much less likely in a large
institution. In a small facility, they would be able to be involved much more easily. He
stated typically the family and the client get involved in selecting the menu and make
sure items they like are on the menu. He stated they do try to do this in larger facilities,
but it is not done with the same regularity.
Ms. Kirk asked if the six people living in these facilities, other than not being related by
blood, will operate as a family unit in all other respects; and Mr. Champ agreed.
Mr. Champ stated this is the whole concept. He stated they will move into the house and
this will be their permanent home. He stated because of the way this is designed, two of
the six will eventually leave that home and move into a different permanent home. The
remainder will stay at this home. He stated they currently have one hundred group homes
that they operate, and they have some people who have been living in the same home
since the 1970s. He stated if they at some point experience terminal illness, they stay
there and bring in hospice. He stated the groups become very attached. He stated they
also have house parents who live there. House parents can be a single person, a married
couple, or a married couple with children; and this depends on the size of the house and
what they have available for them. Ms. Kirk asked if the individuals who are proposed to
reside in each of these homes have lived together in the past. Mr. Champ stated they did
make it a priority to keep people together who are already living together and who are
good friends. He stated this is also good because the client’s families also know each
other as well.
Mr. Schneider asked the duties of the house manager/house parents, and Mr. Champ
stated it is their duty to be the surrogate parents and have responsibility to ensure that the
residents are clothed, fed, and have a safe, secure, healthy environment. They are also
responsible for making sure that the direct care staff is properly scheduled, and that the
trips to the community are scheduled and carried out properly. They also do the contacts
with the family and community groups. The house parents live in the home in separate
quarters. He stated this is why they purchase relatively large houses as they want them to
have their own separate bedrooms and living room areas. They eat with the residents as
this is a requirement of the job. Mr. Schneider asked who prepares the meals, and
Mr. Champ stated the direct care staff and the house parents help prepare the meals along
with help from the residents as much as possible. He stated the residents will be in the
kitchen area and there is generally something they can find for everyone to do.
Mr. Schneider asked the benefit of having house parents to the residents. Mr. Camp
stated the main thing is consistency and the fact that they know there is one person
always there. He stated it also ensures a connection between the shifts. Mr. Champ
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 10 of 27
stated if a client were ill and could not go to their day program, the house parent would
stay with them at the house as the rest of the staff would be going off during the day to
the adult training facility with the other residents.
Ms. Kirk asked if the house parents have any other independent employment positions.
Mr. Champ stated if they are a married couple, either the husband or the wife would be
the house manager employed by Allegheny. The other individual could be employed
either by Allegheny or have some other job. Ms. Kirk asked what the situation would be
if there was only one house parent, and Mr. Champ stated that person would be the
employee of
with children and the vast majority of their homes have married couples with one or two
children. If they have a very large house, they could have three children. Ms. Kirk asked
if
stated this is incorrect as they do have single people that are house parents. In this case,
that individual would be employed only by
and could have no other employment. They are on twenty-four hour call; and if they are
away shopping, etc., they would have a beeper and cell phone.
Mr. Champ stated the other benefits of the house parents is that it provides on-site
management. He stated they spend a lot of time finding qualified people. He stated the
other benefit is that the house parent is part of the neighborhood. He stated when there
are house parents, they are on site and have responsibility for the shift if the direct care
staff does not come to work. He stated the neighbors would know the house parents and
could contact them if they have any concerns. He stated they prefer that their house
parents they have children and they look for communities with very good School
Districts as they try to attract a certain type of person and usually these are people who
have children and are very interested in having their children attend a good School
District. He stated they have found that they will typically stay with them until their
children are out of the local
therefore with them for a long period of time because they have grown roots in the
community. He stated the children also have a tremendously-positive effect on the
clients, and the house parents have indicated that their children also benefit from this
experience as well. Mr. Schneider asked the benefit to having a house parent with a
spouse. Mr. Champ stated they have found that married couples stay with them longer.
Mr. Schneider noted the prior Exhibits he had marked as A-31 through A-34 and stated
since he will wait for the Realtor to testify, he will not enter these at this time. He
therefore marked a different document Exhibit A-31 which is the job description for the
House Manager/House Parent which describes the duties of the House Manager.
Mr. Champ stated their Human Resources Director prepared this document.
Mr. Caiola stated he would prefer that in the future each Board member be provided a
separate copy of the Exhibits.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 11 of 27
Exhibit A-32 was marked, and Mr. Champ stated this is the job description and definition
for the House Manager Aide/Direct Care Staff. Mr. Champ stated this individual carries
out and supervises all activities of daily living. They also have some maintenance/
housekeeping responsibilities, and help prepare the meals, and go to social events and
Church services with the residents. Mr. Champ stated there are three shifts over a
twenty-four hour period which are 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. On the first shift there would be one House Manager Aide and
the House Manager, two House Manager Aides on the second shifts, and two House
Manager Aides on the third shift. Ms. Kirk asked if the House Manager Aides are
individuals who come in from the outside to the residence, and Mr. Champ agreed. He
stated they are specifically assigned to a specific house. These individuals are in addition
to the House Parents. They do not reside at the house.
Mr. Schneider asked if, prior to hiring, do the House Managers and House Manager
Aides undergo a criminal history check, and Mr. Champ stated they do; and this is
required by law. Mr. Champ stated they also have a Drug and Alcohol policy for all of
their employees which applies to both on duty and off duty use of drugs and alcohol.
Mr. Schneider asked for further discussion on benefits of community living to the clients.
Mr. Champ stated this also helps with personal growth and very quickly they see that the
residents are much better with activities of daily living when they are in a group setting.
A short recess was called. The Board reconvened at 8:36 p.m.
Ms. Kirk stated they will terminate testimony at 10:00 p.m. and continue the Hearing to
the next meeting scheduled for July 19, 2005. Mr. Koopman stated he will not be
available that evening. Ms. Kirk suggested he send someone else from his office.
Mr. Schneider stated one of his expert witnesses will also not be available that evening
although he does have other witnesses who could attend. Ms. Kirk stated she feels the
meeting will again be continued after July 19, and she would prefer to keep this going
forward consecutively.
Mr. Schneider noted the property at
house parent with a family at that location. Mr. Champ stated they do not know who they
will have at that location at this time. They did have a family in mind but because of the
length of this process, they were moved to another house. Mr. Champ stated they do not
have house parents selected for 2100 N. Crescent at this
time. At
they do have a single individual who has been on their staff a number of years. At this
location there will only be a single woman as it is a smaller living area for the house
parents and not an area large enough for a family. There is room in the other two homes
for a married couple and their children. Mr. Schneider asked the limit on the number of
children, and Mr. Champ stated they allow two children as this is normally what the
space for the house parents would allow as they typically have two bedrooms for the
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 12 of 27
house parents. It could therefore be a married couple with two children of the same sex.
If they have three bedrooms, they could have two children of the opposite sex. Ms. Kirk
asked what would happen if one of their house parents who had two children find that
they now have three. Mr. Champ stated that they are told up front that if they have three
children, they cannot continue in the program unless they have a house available large
enough to which they could transfer.
Mr. Schneider asked who is interviewed when they interview for the house parent
position. Mr. Champ stated they do try to get existing staff and advertise within the
criteria. They also use the Internet and professional organizations to advertise. They
interview at least twice the spouse of the House Manager and interview the children at
least once.
Mr. Schneider asked the maximum number of parking spaces they would need at the
residences, and Mr. Champ stated they would need four as they would need one for the
house parents, one vehicle for the house itself, and a maximum of two people coming in
on the shift. The residence is provided with a vehicle depending on whether the home is
for ambulatory or non-ambulatory clients. Most of the homes have some non-ambulatory
people and they are provided with an adaptive van with a lift. If they are ambulatory,
they would be provided with a Caravan or similar vehicle. Mr. Schneider asked if any of
the clients drive or have driver’s licenses, and Mr. Champ stated they do not.
Mr. Schneider asked about maintenance of the house. Mr. Champ stated
day. They also have a maintenance crew in the Greater Philadelphia area including
carpenters, electricians, people in the building trade, etc. A slip would be sent in for a
specific project and a crew would take care of the problem. He stated some of the house
parents can do some small maintenance items themselves. They typically have a contract
service cut the grass although there are some house parents who enjoy doing this and take
care of it themselves. This is also the case with regard to maintenance of shrubbery. He
stated in the summer they often hire local college students to do the lawn maintenance.
With regard to snow and ice removal, they have maintenance service handle this and they
hire people in regions so that they are close to a number of homes. If it is an area where
they cannot get one of their people to come out, they contract with a local company.
Typically the staff will shovel the walks unless it is a very heavy snow where this would
be handled by a maintenance crew or local contractor. Typically they paint the exteriors
every five to eight years.
Mr. Schneider asked if the homes are inspected by regulatory agencies, and Mr. Champ
stated with regard to the program for the residents, the Department of Health does the
inspection. This includes all activities of daily living which is called Active Treatment –
how they put a plan together and how they make sure the plan is carried out properly.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 13 of 27
The Operating Regulations, which are Federal Regulations, are contracted out to the State
Department of Health. Mr. Schneider asked about physical plant inspections, and
Mr. Champ stated Life Safety comes in every year and looks for hazards in the exterior
and interior of the buildings. This is a State Agency.
Ms. Kirk asked what type of Federal license is issued to
Mr. Champ stated it is State license and the Federal Government has the State do the
monitoring. The Department of Health does the survey and makes a determination
whether you can get a license or not and they send this to the Office of Mental
Retardation and the Officer of Mental Retardation actually gives them their Certificate of
Compliance. Ms. Kirk asked if the license that is issued by the State for a long-term
residential facility, or is it considered a treatment facility. Mr. Schneider stated it is for
an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded. The State, by regulation, has
adopted by reference the Federal regulations.
Mr. Champ stated at any time you can have individuals from the Office Mental
Retardation come out for follow-up visits. They can also have “Look Behind” surveys
where the Federal Government actually sends out teams to see that the License Surveyors
have done their job. Mr. Schneider stated Mr. Champ has indicated that they have close
to one hundred group homes and he asked if they have ever received a complaint about
the physical condition of one of their properties, and Mr. Champ stated they have not.
Mr. Schneider asked for a comparison of the traffic generated by one of their group
homes to a typical single-family residence. Mr. Champ stated he has not done a traffic
pattern study in Yardley, but in his experience with the homes they operate, they have
never had a complaint about excessive traffic. He stated the staff are trained to
courteously drive through the neighborhood. He stated there will be two additional cars
coming in at most on a shift. He stated a parent could also come in to visit their child or
take them out for a visit. Mr. Schneider asked if the employees go through driver
training, and Mr. Champ stated they do.
Mr. Schneider asked if the residents or staff use any more water than a non-disabled
person, and Mr. Champ stated they do not. He also stated they do not generate any more
sewage or refuse or use an ambulance or rescue service any more than normal. With
regard to Police response to the homes, Mr. Champ stated unless it is required that a
police vehicle accompany an ambulance, this has not occurred in the past. They have
never had the Police visit one of their homes related to a complaint. Mr. Schneider asked
if they ask any help from the Fire services in the community, and Mr. Champ stated they
do ask that the Fire Marshall come out once a year and attend a Fire Drill and check the
systems. He stated there are regular Fire Drills as required by regulation. He stated they
do them on each shift and they must have the facility evacuated within so many minutes.
Mr. Schneider asked about mechanical devises related to fire, and Mr. Champ stated they
install a fully-operational sprinkler system in each of the homes, although it is not
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 14 of 27
obvious and does not detract from the residential nature of the home. He stated they also
have fully electrically-interconnected fire and smoke detection systems that are
monitored twenty-four hours and go directly into a monitoring station in the Fire
Department.
Mr. Schneider asked if any of the residents other than the children of the house parents
make use of the public school system, and Mr. Champ stated they do not as they are all
over school age.
Mr. Schneider asked for an explanation of the Life Safety Department. Mr. Champ stated
under the regulations for an ICF MR facility, they need to have approval from the
Division of Life Safety of their Building Plan and the architect sends them the Plans.
Life Safety is a State Bureau and they have the responsibility of reviewing ICF MR
facilities. The meet all their Codes and receive approval from them. They have received
Life Safety approval for all of the residences.
Mr. Schneider asked if any of the residents have the tendency to make loud noises, and
Mr. Champ stated they will not. He asked if they can have radios, stereos and
televisions; and Mr. Champ stated they can but they are supervised in their use as they
are supervised with everything they do. Mr. Schneider asked how often has
Mr. Champ was asked to describe a typical day at the group home. Mr. Champ stated the
individuals are awakened between 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. as it is somewhat involved
getting everyone ready for the day. They dress and have breakfast and then go out for
their day program/workshop. He stated every client goes out for a day program at
8:00 a.m. and does not return until between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. They go to an adult
training facility. In the evening, they may help with the final preparations for dinner.
After their meal, they would participate in activities around the home – watching TV,
board games, go to a local mall or a social event, etc. On the weekends, they may sleep
in later and then do normal activities that people participate in at their home. On Sunday
they normally have a brunch and clients enjoy going to Church.
Mr. Schneider asked about the payment of taxes. Mr. Champ stated they are a private,
non-profit, 501C3 organization. They are exempt from property taxes; but in spite of this
they have across the board voluntarily paid taxes in all the communities they are in. He
stated they feel since they are using the services of the community, they have always paid
taxes in the community. Ms. Kirk asked if this would be all the property taxes or just
Township and County, and Mr. Champ stated they pay School and any property taxes and
they ask for exemption from nothing. Mr. Schneider asked if there has ever been an
exception, and Mr. Champ stated the first exception was last month in a local Township
where they were put through a similar type of Hearing process that is taking place in
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 15 of 27
half way through the process because of the extraordinary expenses that they had not
anticipated in putting that home together, that they would ask for an exemption from
property taxes at that one community and not pay taxes until the extraordinary costs were
paid down. He stated in that instance it involved $80,000 of additional costs and the
taxes were $10,000 a year. He stated this was the first time in their history that they were
put through this kind of lengthy process. The other Municipalities involved one or two
Hearings, or more typically none as they had the Zoning Ordinance that allowed group
homes in their community, and they did not even need to go through this process.
Mr. Schneider asked if anything has happened in
impact their decision to pay taxes. Mr. Champ said it has. He stated they first applied in
March and have been going back and forth and have had extraordinary architectural costs
at this point because there are some contentions about the Codes and interpretations. He
stated they are now incurring substantial legal fees and they would take the same position
in
never not paid taxes but they have not had this kind of a situation.
Mr. Schneider asked if there has been a request to the Township to approve funding of
these programs. Mr. Champ stated they are doing fourteen homes and financing it
through different tax-exempt funding methods. This is how they have always done
financing either with bond issues or tax-free Municipals. He stated they go through a
procedure similar to an Industrial Development Authority process and go into the local
areas. They have done this for the last twenty years. This is presented before each
Municipality’s Board of Commissioners. This is a formality where an attorney makes a
presentation and they sign off on it. Mr. Champ stated all the Municipalities in the area
signed off on this except for
has cost them over $600,000.
Ms. Kirk asked how this testimony is relevant to what is before the Zoning Hearing
Board. Mr. Schneider stated he has no further questions of this witness. Ms. Kirk asked
why this testimony was offered. Mr. Schneider stated it goes to the issue of paying taxes
as this is an issue that is always addressed during these meetings, and he wanted to put it
on the record.
Mr. Dobson asked if they would be willing to provide a list
of other
School group homes in the area so that the residents could visit them to see if what they
are saying is actually taking place. Mr. Champ stated he could not provide such a list.
He stated there are recent obligations that all medical facilities must comply with
regarding privacy. What they have done in the past is they have taken groups to the
homes, but they cannot just give out addresses and have people knocking on doors.
Mr. Dobson asked if they would be willing to take a group of residents to a home, and
Mr. Dobson stated they have been doing this and would be more than happy to do so.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 16 of 27
Mr. Schneider asked the closest locations they could take
them to which are already in operation.
Mr. Champ stated they are in Bucks and
Abington, and
County. Mr. Champ
noted Upper Southhampton and
to these homes opening where did they take groups. Mr. Champ stated they have ten
homes in the City of
have house parents and they do not own those homes. These were Bond Project homes.
He stated the City put together a project for people from Pennhurst and a few other large
institutions that were closed down. They bought these homes which are in the City but
they could not get providers to operate them under ICF MR which is a relatively
complicated and demanding type of service to provide because the regulations are so
strict and some providers do not want to do this. They were asked by the City and State
officials if they would run some of these Bond homes and they took ten of them. He
stated they do not have facilities for house parents and are the only homes in their system
where they do not have house parents. He stated they had questions similar to those
being asked now when they appeared before other Zoning Boards. He stated they have a
fairly large number of homes in
with house parents living in the homes and they invited the concerned residents to go to
Hershey and meet the staff. After they went to the homes, those people also, on their
own, went into the neighborhood and asked the neighbors their opinions and also
contacted the local Police and the Township Manager; and it was a very positive
experience. He stated the Hearings were quickly completed as a result of the neighbors
going into those homes. He stated locally they have now opened some of the fourteen
homes and had they had them opened previously, they could have visited those rather
than go to Hershey. He would therefore be more than willing to have a reasonable size
group at a time go see those homes. Mr. Schneider stated they could therefore see new
homes which have just opened or go see the homes in Hershey which have been opened
for about ten to fifteen years. Mr. Schneider stated they can call Mr. Champ at
412-299-7777 or Mr. Raymond Smith, the Regional
Administrator in
215-677-9500.
Mr. Bamburak asked about the Bond Issue that was previously discussed that was
cancelled because
attorney comes in and does a presentation on the program and what the financing will be
used for. The local Municipalities that are involved in this funding group sign off on it;
and
Municipalities was selected. Mr. Champ stated it is similar to an Industrial Development
Authority and a number of Municipaliteis participate in it. There are funds available and
you can go through that to get a lower rate. This is typically the kind of funding they do,
and this was the first time a Municipality did not sign off. He stated it does not have
anything to do with the current Zoning issue. He stated the Township could have
approved that and the Zoning Hearing Board could still turn them down, so they were
surprised that this had occurred.
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 17 of 27
Mr. Toadvine had no questions of the witness.
Mr. Koopman stated Mr. Champ had indicated that Allegheny was a non-profit
corporation and a 501C3 under the IRS Code, and Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Koopman
asked if Allegheny is organized on a membership basis. Mr. Champ stated they have a
voluntary Board of Directors. Mr. Koopman asked if the Board is self perpetuating so
that when one member of the Board resigns, the Board would appoint a new Director,
and Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Schneider stated he understands that the Board are the
members and the membership is limited to the Board of Directors. Mr. Champ stated
there are ten members of the Board of Directors and there are officers. Mr. Koopman
asked that they be provided with a list of the Officers of the Corporation and the members
of the Board of Directors, and Mr. Champ agreed to do so. Mr. Koopman asked when
asked the names of the incorporators and who appointed the initial Board of Directors.
Mr. Champ stated he understands the original incorporator was Patricia Hillman Miller
who founded the organization, Bob Prince and Doug Hannah. Mr. Koopman asked if any
of these individuals are still with the organization, and Mr. Champ stated those three are
deceased. He stated there are one or two who were on the Board in 1960 and are still on
the Board and he can get this information to the Township.
Mr. Koopman asked that they also provide copies of financial statements. Ms. Kirk
asked how this is relevant to what is before the Board. Mr. Koopman stated one of the
concerns that has been expressed is whether this entity will have the financial viability to
maintain these homes in a manner suitable to
financial condition of the entity and financial history is relevant. Ms. Kirk stated what is
before the Zoning Hearing Board is a question that relates to the Township Zoning
Ordinance and has nothing to do with whether they have the ability to maintain a home or
not and is no different than any other individual coming in to buy a home who might then
go bankrupt. Mr.
Koopman stated Mr. Schneider has conceded that
School does not meet the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance so he is before the
Board asking for Variances under the State MPC or accommodations under the Fair
Housing Act. Mr. Toadvine stated he does not feel that this is true. He stated part of the
Application was an Appeal of the determination of the Zoning Officer. Mr. Koopman
agreed but stated he is also asking for either relief under State Zoning law or asking for
reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act. He stated in order to be entitled
to that,
standards he has to meet under State MPC requirements are the traditional Variance
standards that are dealt with at every Hearing. Mr. Koopman stated what he is now
addressing may be relevant under State law provisions, but is clearly relevant under the
Fair Housing Act because the Applicant has a burden of establishing that the
accommodations are necessary but also even if he establishes that he is otherwise entitled
to reasonable accommodation, then the Zoning Hearing Board has to go through an
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 18 of 27
additional analysis to see whether the accommodation would have any hardship upon the
Township, provide any administrative burden on the Township and/or have any adverse
effect upon the overall Zoning scheme of the Township. He agrees that Mr. Schneider
will probably state this is the burden that shifts to anyone who would be opposed to the
Application. Therefore the Board will be addressing two questions on the Fair Housing
Act – have they met their burden of establishing entitlement to a reasonable
accommodation and secondly, even if they have, is there a showing being made by
anyone – the Township or the residents present, that the granting of the accommodation
would have some kind of hardship upon the Township or Township residents, an
administrative burden, and/or would be in violation of the essential Zoning policy and
scheme of the Township. When they address this, they need to consider the typical issues
that are addressed with any Special Exception or accommodation case – will there be a
hardship or adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, and this
is where the question arises as to how the houses will be maintained and the effect of the
houses on the neighbors and real estate values. He stated questions having to do with real
estate values, and upkeep and maintenance of the homes are all issues relevant as to
whether they meet the burden for accommodation that there will not be an adverse effect.
Ms. Kirk agreed to allow Mr. Koopman limited leeway. She stated she will now allow
them to go back over financial information for the last five to ten years. Mr. Schneider
stated he has no objection to providing the financial statement for the last year. He stated
he feels Mr. Koopman is going far a field on his defense to the request for a reasonable
accommodation. Mr. Schneider stated he will have testimony from the State that the State
provides the funds for maintaining these buildings. He stated he recognizes that some
information that they are not required to give may go a long way to alleviating some
concerns of those present so they will provide this although he does not feel it is relevant.
Mr. Koopman noted the
operating and is located in
noted Mr. Champ referred to a Waiver Program and he asked if what they are proposing
is part of the Waiver Program. Mr. Champ stated it is not. He stated theirs is ICF MR
which is actually a funding stream. The other funding stream that is dominant is the
Waiver Funding Stream. Both are from the Title 19 Medicaid Act. The Waiver Program
is basically the ICF MR program and certain of those regulations are waived to make it a
little more flexible. The Waiver Program pays for family living and life sharing
programs, homes that are three beds or less, and provides some day services for families.
He stated while they do have some Waiver Programs, but these houses in Lower
Makefield are not part of that Program.
Mr. Koopman stated Mr. Champ testified that Allegheny provides care in a variety of
residential settings from small settings of one to two people. He asked where those
settings would be, and Mr. Champ stated they would be within a single-family home in a
residential community. Mr. Koopman asked how many of these Allegheny operates
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 19 of 27
where there are one or two individuals in a single-family home. Mr. Champ stated they
have possibly three or four of these one to two bed facilities as this is a very unusual
program because they are very expensive and would be for an exceptional situation
where the State or Plan requires a one or two person placement because of the
complications the person may have.
Mr. Koopman stated the next group he discussed was three to six bed homes and this is
the type of facility they are proposing for
must have at least four beds and can go up to any number in order to be funded by the
State. With regard to a group home, Mr., Champ stated he feels the regulations state it
can be four to sixteen. He stated even going to six beds was an exception since he does
not believe there has been anything above four beds developed for probably ten years.
He stated someone from the State will be present to testify to this. Mr. Champ stated it
was an exception to go to six beds, but it is allowed under the Regulations.
Mr. Koopman asked the maximum number of clients they have in any group home in the
County in Western, PA, and another in
the same type of facility where there are house parents, and Mr. Champ agreed.
Mr. Champ stated the total number of people in those homes would depend on the
residence itself. If they are complicated people, you might have one to two and if they
are not, you could have three staff people on at once. Mr. Koopman asked how many
people would be living in the facility where there are eight clients. Mr. Schneider
objected since they are not asking for an eight bed facility – they are asking for six.
Objection was sustained.
Mr. Koopman asked if they would be prepared to stipulate and agree that with respect to
the N. Crescent and Big Oak properties that there would not be more than ten full-time
residents in those homes. Mr. Schneider asked if this would include the house parents
and children as well as the clients, and Mr. Schneider stated they would be willing to
stipulate that there would be no more than ten people living in the house, and there would
be no more than six people with mental retardation. Mr. Koopman asked about the
would propose to live in that property would be eight people including the clients and the
house parents assuming it was a married couple as that property is not large enough for a
married couple and a child.
Mr. Koopman stated
homes. He stated Mr.
Champ also discussed the group homes in
County that will take the place of the
group home facilities in
homes that he already discussed. Mr. Koopman asked how many residents are in those
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 20 of 27
homes. Mr. Champ stated he believes one has seven beds and the others are between four and six beds. This only includes clients as there is no live-in staff at these facilities.
Mr. Champ stated those are listed in the Website by street and they have been operating
those since the mide-80s. Mr. Koopman asked if there would be an opportunity for
someone to visit those facilities, and Mr. Champ stated they could but they should
understand that they are owned by the City and there are no house parents at those
facilities. He added there is a Staff Manager for the house, but the Staff Manager does
not live on the property. Mr. Koopman asked if there are other differences between those
group homes in
stated the other difference would be that they are in the
inner city and this is
so it is a different environment. He stated the homes in
clients are thriving in the small environments and they are proud of them.
Mr. Koopman stated Mr. Champ indicated that there are regulations about disclosure of
the specific address, but as part of the Application to the Pennsylvania Department of
Economic and Community Development, the address of the homes are listed. He stated
the first home listed is the
which is entitled Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Single Application for Assistance. Mr. Schneider stated while Mr. Koopman has not
offered this yet, he would like to object to this going in with the addresses on it. He
stated there is a recent State Supreme Court case dealing with the DEC Grant
Applications that says that the Grant Applications are not public record. He stated he has
no problem with Mr. Koopman keeping the roads on, but he would not want there to be
reference to the specific addresses. He stated to the extent that these were given to
DCED, they were given to DCED in light of the Supreme Court decision that the
Applications themselves are not public documents. Mr. Koopman stated this document
was provided to the Township by Counsel for the Telford Authority as part of the process
of seeking approval for their tax free bond issue so it is not something the Township went
out and sought.
Ms. Kirk asked the relevance of the submission of this document. Mr. Koopman stated it
is a listing of facilities, and he would like to ask the Applicant some questions about the
other facilities that are proposed to house the residents that currently reside in the
A brief recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 9:33 p.m.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Koopman why he needs submission of T-1 to ask the Applicant’s
representative questions about the other facility. Mr. Koopman stated he is not sure he
needs the submission of the document just for that issue, but there are some things in the
document that bear on how many people are going to be coming and going from these
facilities as well as other issues. He stated they have indicated that they are closing the
July 13, 2005 Zoning Hearing Board – page 21 of 27
Counties. He stated he would like to ask about the other group homes, whether they are
in place so they can look at them, and how many clients are in these other group homes.
He stated he understands that one of the group homes has only five residents at the outset
rather than six, and this Applicant has testified that he needed six. He stated this is very
relevant because the Zoning Ordinance permits five unrelated people to live together and
not six. He stated the reason for the accommodation is because this Applicant is saying he
needs six to make this financially viable. Ms. Kirk asked that Mr. Koopman ask the
question, but noted the document (T-1) will not be admitted.
Mr. Koopman stated Exhibit T-1 identifies ten potential homes which he assumes are
group homes that are intended to replace the
not sure of the specific numeric addresses, but they are the correct roads. Mr. Champ
noted the document was signed by the Corporate Secretary for
and Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Koopman stated also shown is the Director of Finance, and
Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Koopman stated they both signed this and verified its accuracy,
and Mr. Champ agreed it is signed.
Mr. Koopman stated Mr. Champ has already referred to the
facility in
yet. He stated it is completed and the move-in date is by the end of this month. It has
been certified and the clients are in the process of moving in. Mr. Koopman stated he
was under the impression that this was one of the homes that they were offering to take
people to, and Mr. Champ stated he would be willing to do so. Mr. Koopman stated it is
not yet occupied, and Mr. Champ stated it will be either next week or the week after.
Mr. Koopman stated the
Southampton facility, the Telford facility, and two
and N. Crescent, and Mr. Champ agreed. Mr. Koopman stated it appears that there are
only four group homes in
Mr. Koopman noted the facility proposed for
property probably closed after they prepared T-1.
Mr. Koopman asked why three of the fours homes to be located
in
located in