Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Residential Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed adult group home seeks waiver of 1,000‑foot separation; nearby providers opposed
Summary
An applicant requested a variance to allow a Type A community residential home for adults with disabilities within roughly 243 feet of an existing such home; existing area providers objected, citing licensing rules and the rationale for the 1,000‑foot separation requirement.
An applicant seeking to operate a Type A community residential home for adults with disabilities requested on June 23 a variance to the Land Development Code requirement that such homes be at least 1,000 feet apart from similar homes.
Tanya Cappello of County Development Services presented staff findings: the applicant is requesting a 757‑foot reduction in the community residential home distance separation requirement under LDC section 6.11.28(a), producing a separation of roughly 243 feet to an existing facility.
Applicant Gerard Thomas Doris III said he would operate the home for adults with disabilities and that the owner of the property — who is present in the hearing record — wanted a son to be closer to his mother. Doris said some persons in need are in temporary placements following recent hurricanes and that he had clients “on standby” waiting placement. He said the property owner will lease the home to him and that the intended capacity is five to six residents.
Several neighboring providers and operators opposed the variance. Megan Spicer identified herself as director of a group home on the same street and said the separation rule exists so that clients live in a diverse community rather than an area concentrated with multiple group homes: “The whole point of that was to keep from having a bunch of disabled houses in the same community,” Spicer said. Another provider, who cited state rules, told the hearing that state licensing and the Florida Administrative Code and statutes set spacing and facility requirements and urged that the county follow those standards.
The applicant’s supporters included the property owner, who said she offered the house so her son could live closer. The applicant said typical operations would include one staff member overnight and one or two staff during daytime hours, and that staff and family visits would be limited in frequency.
County staff closed the public hearing. The hearing officer did not rule at the meeting and said she will issue a written decision within 15 working days. Staff flagged the variance as a request requiring demonstration of hardship; the applicant described family and placement timing constraints as the hardship basis.
