BZA vote allows ResCare to modify facility for adult care

By ERIC BERNSEE

Editor

Repurposing of the old ResCare facility to shift the care from boys to men and women received Greencastle Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approval Tuesday night but not before a number of issues were addressed and stipulations were attached.

Tabled at the BZA's August meeting, ResCare was requesting approval to renovate its 10,000-square-foot facility and repurpose it for housing adult clients.

The building at 1306 Bloomington St., which formerly housed as many as 32 juvenile boys in a residential environment, would be remodeled into a structure designed to handle a maximum of 24 adults who have been diagnosed as developmentally disabled and mentally ill.

While Tuesday night's meeting was nothing like the often-emotional, nearly 2-1/2-hour session of the BZA on Aug. 8, it wasn't without a little drama of its own.

Only three BZA members were available Tuesday evening to hear ResCare's request for a special exception use variance. With board president Donnie Watson and new member Scott Davis both absent, the onus fell to John Phillips, Wayne Lewis and Doris Miller to decide the project's fate.

Addressing lingering concerns from the previous meeting, ResCare spokesman Holly Piggott explained enhanced security measures, including directed lighting, fencing and the placement of security cameras in the parking lot and behind the building.

"We have a pretty good plan in place, and I feel pretty secure with that plan," Piggott said, explaining she had been in contact with Greencastle Police Chief Tom Sutherlin about security measures.

"I hope we never need it," she said, "but never say never."

The fencing will be black, industrial-grade, eight-foot-high metal (not chain link). The facility had no fencing, it was pointed out, when it housed the juvenile boys.

The adults in question, Piggott said, "are cognitively disabled." The facility's safety measures are intended to keep them safe, she noted, "more so than the community."

Security measures have been designed to keep clients from leaving the facility on their own.

"So to leave the facility," City Attorney Laurie Hardwick posed, "first they would have to get through the door system (key fob entry), then they would have to leave through the fence?"

"Yes," Piggott replied, adding that ResCare is "willing to work with a list of people to be notified if someone elopes."

Police Chief Sutherlin praised the safety plan as "100 percent better" than anything ResCare had in place when it housed juveniles. He added that the county 911 system is capable of putting a reverse 911 call in place that would notify neighbors within a certain radius if someone got out of the facility.

At least part of neighbors' original apprehension about the new ResCare plan was that they were never adequately notified when juvenile issues were occurring at the facility. They carried that history into the August discussion and initially didn't seem placated Tuesday night.

In fact, BZA member Miller cited neighbors' uncertainty over the security issue in originally voting against the special exception Tuesday night.

That transpired after Lewis made a motion for approval but Miller hedged on seconding it, leaving that to acting chairman John Phillips.

"I'm sorry," Miller said. "I still don't feel comfortable with this, I can't second it."

And neither could she vote for it as the initial measure failed to pass by a 2-1 margin. With just three members present, all three votes were necessary for any action, according to statute.

After Piggott then addressed Miller's security questions more specifically, neighbors like Maurice Butler were asked about their recent visit to a similar ResCare adult facility at Marion.

"It was better than I expected," Butler allowed, calling the residents there "Comprehensive Services-type clients."

"I was comfortable with that," Butler said. "If that's the type of client that's going to be here, I think we're fine."

With that helping to clear the air, Lewis offered a second motion, complete with stipulations on the number and type of individuals allowed at the facility. Phillips again seconded but this time Miller made it a unanimous 3-0 vote for approval.

"I'm OK with that," she noted after the stipulations were spelled out and added to the motion.

In approving the special exception, the BZA included the following limitations and stipulations concerning the operations of the facility and use of the property:

-- The maximum number of residents permitted to be housed at the facility shall not exceed 24.

-- The facility is authorized to only house adult clients.

-- ResCare shall comply with Emergency Rule, LSA Document 12-515(E) at all times and all individuals that reside at the facility must meet that rule. By definition, they must be adults who meet the definition of federal intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded level of care who may have a dual diagnosis, have acute and high-risk challenges and be in need of comprehensive service delivery.

-- ResCare must comply with its safety and security plan and shall notify the city upon any material change to the plan. Any material change shall require review and approval of the plan by the BZA.

-- The ratio of staff to clients may not fall below one staff member to three clients in any given 24-hour period.

The proposal to repurpose the ResCare building has been driven by a new state program that desires to place developmentally disabled adults in a facility that through training offers them the best chance to become more productive. Currently such individuals are being isolated in areas of state hospital facilities.

Any adult who would be sent to the new ResCare facility would be a referral from the state with the Indiana State Department of Health Division of Rehabilitative Services serving as the governing body.

Local staffing at ResCare would be 24 hours a day, seven days a week with approximately 65 direct-care staff members and 15 administrative personnel employed.