Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sober Living Reentry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public hearing on proposed supervised reentry/sober-living residence draws supporters and opponents in Pickens County
Summary
An applicant seeking to use a Henderson Mountain-area property for accountability-court–linked supervised reentry housing faced sustained public comment; opponents cited neighborhood compatibility, lack of state licensing and safety/response concerns, while recovery advocates and residents in long-term recovery urged the board to consider the program's benefits.
An application to use a Pickens County property for supervised reentry and sober-living tied to an accountability-court program prompted lengthy public comment and sharply contrasting testimony at a county hearing.
Applicant John Geyer described the proposal as a structured transitional residence for men in accountability court, saying residents would have jobs, transportation, curfews, regular drug testing and 24-hour camera surveillance. "This is just an opportunity for them to have somewhere to go to transition so they can work and save money," Geyer told the board.
Opponents, many of them nearby homeowners, said a supervised, high-occupancy residential facility is incompatible with the rural-residential neighborhood, pointed to limited emergency-response distances and said Georgia does not license sober-living homes, creating a perceived lack of oversight. Suzanne Abrahamson, who said she recently paid more than $1 million for a home near the site, called the proposal "spot zoning" and said "the need of 1 group should not supersede the rights of existing residents," raising privacy and quality-of-life concerns.
Supporters included people in long-term recovery and program staff who outlined observed outcomes. Angie Miller, who said she has 13 years in recovery and probation experience, reminded the board of federal civil-rights protections and said, "The Fair Housing Act protects people from saying somebody can't live beside me," noting limitations on excluding people based on disability related to addiction. Several speakers who lived in or led recovery programs described the role of housing in treatment retention and public safety.
Board members did not take a final vote on the proposal at this meeting. Staff said there will be another public hearing and encouraged commenters to consolidate representatives so the next hearing can proceed efficiently. The transcript records extensive public testimony both for and against; staff asked the board to allow additional time at a future hearing and requested any written comments be submitted to planning staff for review.
What happens next: staff will schedule a subsequent public hearing after additional analysis. The board and staff will consider fire-safety capacity, certification or compliance checks, accountability-court engagement and the comprehensive-plan consistency raised by commenters before a final decision is reached.
