Niskayuna resists state's plan for group home Town is saturated with residences serving the disabled, opponents say
By LAUREN STANFORTH, Staff writer First published: Friday, March 28, 2008
NISKAYUNA -- Town officials want a proposed home for developmentally disabled adults stopped because they say Niskayuna is saturated with group homes.
Town Supervisor Joe Landry recently sent a letter on behalf of the town to the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities that said Niskayuna objects to a group home being established at 2303 Pine Ridge Road in part because the town has 21 such residences in its 14-square-mile area. Landry said he later learned from the state that Niskayuna has 25 group homes. The town's population is 21,662. The neighboring town of Glenville, with a population of 21,206 residents (not including the village of Scotia), has 15 group homes. Rotterdam, at 29,387 people, has eight group homes. Clifton Park, at 36,447 people, also has eight group homes. An open, administrative hearing to debate the project was held this week between state representatives and Niskayuna. Landry said the state might want group homes near the Oswald D. Heck Development Center on Balltown Road for the convenience of employees. "We in Niskayuna feel like we've done our fair share," he said. Kara Smith, director of public information for the OMRDD, said the agency doesn't pay attention to municipal boundaries, but tries to find safe, suitable housing. Smith said group home residents should be thought of as any other specific population in a town, such as people of certain ethnic backgrounds or religions. "They are people we want to give the opportunity to to live a normal, integrated life in the community," she said. The state is interested in buying a six-bedroom raised ranch home, listed for $279,500, and making alterations to accommodate the six adults who would live there. Smith said the state wants the residents, who have lived together for about 16 years, to move out of a deteriorating neighborhood in Schenectady. Godfrey Lane resident and Pine Ridge neighbor David Porush said there also are concerns about how many cars will be parked at the house every day. "It's destroying the value of the property. It diminishes the character of the neighborhood and, most of all, it's overall saturation," Porush said. State laws governing group homes trump any zoning that would keep them from locating in a residential area. Group homes are treated as single-family homes. Landry said it's rare for a protesting municipality to win in a group home case. The final recommendation from the hearing is made by the commissioner of the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. It's unknown yet when that decision will be made. Stanforth can be reached at 454-5697 or by e-mail at lstanforth@timesunion.com.
NISKAYUNA Neighbors oppose new group home Supervisor says too many facilities will change neighborhood BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
A proposed new state group home in Niskayuna has neighbors upset and the town supervisor wondering: Why Niskayuna? Supervisor Joe Landry sent a letter last month to state officials, objecting to the home now proposed for 2303 Pine Ridge Road. Landry cited resident concerns, at the top of which is a seeming concentration of the homes in Niskayuna. The town currently has 21 community residential facilities, which Landry contends is the highest concentration among neighboring towns. There are also six other community residential homes within a mile of the proposed site. “At some point, when you have too many group homes within a neighborhood community, you change the character and nature of the neighborhood,” Landry said Friday. Landry’s letter followed a January informational meeting between state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities officials and local residents. An administrative hearing was also held last week, with more evidence a possibility. The fi nal decision rests with the OMRDD commissioner, Landry said. That decision could be challenged in court, though he noted that would be several steps ahead. The site would be home to six developmentally disabled adults. Three to five people would also work there. Officials with OMRDD did not return calls for comment this week. Residents have also expressed concern over traffic to the home, including the employees and families of the residents. Landry also noted that it is his understanding that the town would not be able to regulate changes to the home. The driveway is already proposed to be changed. Michael Klein lives three doors down from the proposed site. He said he fears property values would plummet in the area. A home with six adults living there is not consistent with the neighborhood, he said. He also said he was concerned about the approval process. OMRDD is proposing the project and OMRDD can approve it. “It’s completely inconsistent with the nature and character of the neighborhood,” Klein said. “We are not unsympathetic or unwilling to share and give, we do all those things,” he said earlier. “But I think the agency is completely out of control.”
Why should tiny Niskayuna have another group home, when it already has 25? I strenuously object to the placement of a group home for developmentally disabled individuals at the proposed site at 2303 Pine Ridge Rd. No matter what the state calls it, it’s a boarding house in a single-family neighborhood, and Niskayuna taxpayers would have to replace lost tax revenues. The cost of the house, plus extensive remodeling, is excessive. My concerns include the following: Altered demographics: While some families might have one or even two developmentally disabled members, there certainly would not be as many as the six contemplated for this group home. Traffic concerns: There will be more crowding of small neighborhood streets by busing of group home residents and cars belonging to the staff. Possible home designation changes: What guarantee do we have that the state won’t change the present designation to put recovering drug/alcohol addicts or ex-criminal teens or adults there? Economic nonsense: The state could buy two or more houses elsewhere for the same price. Furthermore, by locating close to services, costs of transportation and fuel consumption could be severely reduced. Property tax increase: If a property is taken off the tax rolls, current owners would have to make up the difference. Subverting Niskayuna laws and regulations: Because property is owned by the state, could cars be left out on the street overnight and during snowstorms? In a problem situation, would local police have jurisdiction, or would the state police have to be called? EILEEN NATHAN Niskayuna
Re Eileen Nathan’s April 4 letter, “Nisky group home bad idea for many reasons”: As a former 18-year employee of the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities [OMRDD], I worked as a staff member in three such homes from 1993 to 2004. One of Ms. Nathan’s concerns was about the number of disabled people living in one house. I worked in homes with 12, five and seven residents in Watervliet, Rexford and Clifton Park. All of our neighbors were friendly, and at one house we had a very active community support team that had an annual garage sale to benefit our flower beds. The number of folks living there was never an issue with the neighbors. In a house with five or six residents, there are, on average, no more than three staff per shift. I’m sure more than some homes in any given neighborhood have more than two drivers living there, and since most [group home] residents don’t drive, traffic shouldn’t be a major concern. Another stated concern was if the state decides to change the designation of the home. In my years of working for OMRDD, I never heard of that happening. OMRDD is in the business of caring for the developmentally and physically disabled, not drug and alcohol treatment or troubled teens. Those homes might be around, but they are not run by OMRDD. In regard to too many group homes in Niskayuna: That’s where you fi nd the most large, ranch-style homes that are sought for people in wheelchairs. About Ms. Nathan’s concerns that state employees won’t follow town parking and snow emergency laws: I have been at work during snow emergencies, and the same laws apply to state workers as the other folks on the block. Just because a house is owned by the state doesn’t give employees the right to leave their cars on the street. It was my experience that most stateoperated homes are among the best maintained and updated homes in the neighborhood. The state wants this to work, so they make sure the home is maintained well. I hope that Ms. Nathan and others who are against residential homes in their neighborhood would keep an open mind. Most of the staff at these homes are people with families to support and care for these folks that live in these homes. They could be good neighbors. MICHAEL MEHIGAN Glenville
Logged
