Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed personal care home at 3195 Kelly Chapel Road as planners recommend approval
Summary
Planning staff recommended approval of a special land use permit to operate a personal care home for up to six residents at 3195 Kelly Chapel Road, but residents from seven nearby neighborhoods testified in opposition during a March 6 public hearing, citing safety concerns, repeated 911 calls at similar facilities and alleged shortcomings in community notification.
DeKalb County planning staff recommended approval of a special land use permit (SLUP) for a personal care home to serve up to six residents at 3195 Kelly Chapel Road, but a substantial contingent of nearby residents voiced opposition during a March 6 Committee of the Whole public hearing.
The applicant, Sterling Social Services LLC, presented the proposal and said the home would provide round-the-clock, trauma-informed care and supportive services for youth in need. Planning staff concluded the proposal met SLUP criteria and advanced the comprehensive plangoals for locating essential services in residentially zoned areas; however, neighbors said the property type and the applicant's experience raised concerns and asked the board to deny the request.
Applicant and supporters
Cassandra Davis, identifying herself as the applicantrepresentative for Sterling Social Services, told the board the organization has more than five decades of combined experience among the proposed operators and would provide licensed, trauma-informed 24/7 care. "We are those people," Davis said, speaking to the board about the applicants' experience and commitment to children.
Dr. Glenys Jackson, who said she owns the home and is a partner in the venture, said the residence would serve students who lack stable housing and that the proposal aligned with county initiatives to support youth and restorative services.
Planning staff recommendation
Planning staff summarized the application as meeting all SLUP criteria, including setback and separation requirements; staff noted the nearest personal care home is approximately 17,620 feet away and concluded the site presented "limited potential for adverse impacts," recommending approval.
Neighborhood opposition and evidence offered
Opponents representing seven affected subdivisions presented signed petitions and a packet of evidence the group said included 911 call records from 12 of 23 similar facilities within a five-mile radius. Don Shewer, representing "citizens against SLUP 251247288," said the planning commissionanalysis omitted important facts and asserted the countyzoning definitions distinguish personal care homes for adults from child-care institutions. "We, the residents of the 7 affected neighborhoods, strongly oppose the permit application for a CCI business at this location," Shewer said.
Resident Omar Clemons cited the 911 records and said comparable facilities had generated repeated calls for violent incidents, suicide attempts and child welfare checks. He asked commissioners to weigh the potential increase in emergency responses and traffic on Kelly Chapel Road, a two-lane collector that residents said lacks the infrastructure to safely absorb frequent emergency vehicle activity.
Additional speakers described concerns about the applicant's transparency and engagement, saying notification materials were difficult to find and that the Planning Commission held meetings during holiday periods when many residents could not attend. Kennedy White said the applicants had failed to meaningfully engage the community; Rosalyn Barnes Fowler urged commissioners to apply a "do no harm" approach and to avoid placing such uses in established single-family neighborhoods.
Action at the meeting
On March 6, commissioners heard the public comment and the staff recommendation. The hearing closed without a recorded final decision on the SLUP at that time; planning staff and the applicant were present and the matter remained before the board for further consideration under the normal zoning process.
What to watch for
Planning staff's recommendation to approve does not bind the board; depending on subsequent procedural steps, the item may be returned for a formal vote at a future meeting or scheduled for a zoning hearing where the board will need to balance the plannerrecommendation against neighbors' public-safety and community-integrity concerns.
Ending note
The March 6 hearing drew dozens of residents from nearby subdivisions; several speakers noted they had left the meeting before the afternoon session concluded. Commissioners asked staff to confirm details in the record; the application will remain in the zoning process until the board takes final action.
