Rezoning sought for recovery housing in Donora

Many residents turned out to oppose the request, saying the facility would be better in another location.

The Donora Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing Monday amidst scrutiny from residents for a variance request for a possible drug rehabilitation house in a residential neighborhood.

Donora zoning board members, from left, Jon Bellamy, John Conger, Barry Hickman and Dale Shawley heard from residents and applicant Monday for a zoning change to a possible residential property turned rehabilitation house.”

The request, made by Kelly Macheska of Country Community Living, would change 423 Second St. from a R2 two-family residential district to a R3 multiple-family dwelling.

The variance would be for this property only, which technically has two homes, and would possibly be contingent on being rezoned. The current property owner is Tony Vincent, who resides in Morgantown, W.Va.

Zoning officer John Wankulitz said there was an original determination that was a denial due to the zoning definitions. An R2 zoning represents two families residing in a residence with about five residents, according to Wankulitz, and R3 is for multiple families where they are related.

Board member Barry Hickman argued this area could be an example of spot zoning, which is the practice that is illegal in Pennsylvania of rezoning a single parcel of land for a use that is different from the surrounding properties, often conflicting with the community’s overall master plan.

There also needs to be a clear public purpose.

A verdict will be rendered within 45 days, with all parties being notified in writing of the decision.

Chairman John Conger and board member Jon Bellamy recused themselves because they had contact with a neighbor of the property, which left board members Hickman and Dale Shawley to determine a decision.

Donora’s Building Code Official Casey Perrotta said the vote can proceed with two people, and if it ends up in a tie, it is automatically denied. The applicant has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Court of Common Pleas.

Conger and Bellamy asked questions although they didn’t vote, and Hickman talked with the neighbor, but did not give specific details, so he decided to cast a vote.

“What I had said could be interpreted as favoring one way or the other, and to be honest and make a fair and partial hearing, I at this time cannot do that,” Conger said.

‘Not a halfway house’

Macheska, who also runs the substance recovery unit at Penn Highlands Mon Valley Hospital, explained to the board what the house would be used for. It would be a supervised rehabilitation program for recovery housing, which she states is not a halfway house.

The program would operate under the Department of Health and the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, and would be funded by Washington County, which has homes like this more in the city of Washington.

The plan is to house a maximum of seven males ages 18 and older who are in a program and have 30 days of recovery time remaining. Macheska said the estimated success rate through the house would be 75%, and they also take those with disabilities.

The residents are covered under the American Disabilities Act. They will need to do community deeds, go to meetings and be an active member of society.

“The plan is to integrate and get them into a stable housing complex, and what we will offer is this licensed home to get folks to their next destination of recovery,” Macheska said. “It will offer meetings, education and programming to better themselves, to get them integrated into vocational centers, getting them working, getting them established.”

The individuals in the housing stay from six to 12 months and would be randomly drug tested. They are under the lowest level of care because they have already gone through many programs, and they would have 24-hour supervision, along with security and a curfew. They would be taught life skills, and background checks are done.

Any violent behavior, family visits or positive drug tests will result in them being kicked out of the program, according to Macheska.

Macheska argued that the American Disabilities Act does not allow individuals in recovery to be discriminated against, and that not allowing people into the housing will violate it.

Rev. Richard Bohon was called as a witness and said he worked in hospital and outpatient safety for many years. He runs Bible studies for those recovering, and said these people need community support.

“There was no trouble. These folks are there because they want to be there and they want help,” Bohon said. “There was more than just the drugs. They take care of the whole person that’s involved. These folks are really trying to get their life back together. If you have any thoughts in the back of your mind about your safety, you can put that to rest.”

Macheska said people do not treat recovering addicts with respect, adding that they are just trying to get back into the community and shouldn’t be punished.

“They have to commit themselves to this. This is going to be offered to folks that really want a second chance that have proven themselves, have gone through the programs, but just don’t have the housing,” she said. “This is for folks that want that second chance, that don’t have enough money and it’s also a structured environment. They need that support, they need that guidance and they need that accountability.”

Residents’ concerns

Several residents expressed concerns about the rehabilitation house being in that area.

Location was the biggest issue as the property is walking distance from several bars. Many agreed that these services are needed, but argue that it’s in the wrong location and they would prefer to have this housing near downtown Donora.

Resident Danielle Pucel said this is not about opposing treatment or recovering services, but rather where the facility is because it is not appropriate with how many children are nearby. She also had traffic concerns on the tight road, along with how it might affect property values.

“I wouldn’t have a problem if it wasn’t in a residential area,” Bishop Roderick Wilson said. “Downtown, we have an ambulance service here, the police department is not that far, the state police is in town, so the resources are greater in the downtown area.”

Macheska stated that there will be temptation everywhere you go, and that the residents will not be allowed to go to these places.

Resident Samantha Shoemaker, whose husband died as a result of addiction, said recovering addicts will still find ways to satisfy their vice and recommended a new location.

“It is a disservice to put that there,” Shoemaker said. “Where you are putting that they will learn, they will go, they will hide it from you and they will die. I appreciate what you are doing, and it is good work, but that is not the location for it. I don’t have concerns about the safety of the residents. I am worried about them relapsing and us having more deaths.”

Resident Sandy Greco, who has lived two doors down from the property for 50 years, said they do not need to be rezoned, there were red flags in the home and she hopes the area stays the same.

Resident Rachel Bohon said there are also good stories that come from drug rehabilitation, that the center is small to help people change their lives and this is a good thing for the Mon Valley because she said there is a drug problem.

“To speak of a drug center as if they are bringing in the drugs, they’re here,” Bohon said. “These drug addicts are on our streets anyway. This is not going to get rid of them. Donora has a little bit of a reputation, but there’s hope for Donora. Donora should be proud to be part of not the problem, but the solution.”