Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springbrook seeks to open six‑person group home at 315 Norton Ave; town says state law limits objections
Summary
Springbrook Developmental Services presented plans for a six‑resident Individual Residential Alternative at 315 Norton Ave. Neighbors raised concerns about property values and resident backgrounds; Springbrook said it does not serve people with sexual or criminal histories and the town attorney said New York State law limits local grounds to block the facility.
Springbrook Developmental Services asked the Town of Union on June 3 to approve the purchase and operation of a six‑person group home at 315 Norton Ave in Endwell.
Executive Director Kim Corbett and Chief Operating Officer Seth Haight presented a slide show describing the proposed Individual Residential Alternative, a 24‑hour supervised program with trained direct support professionals. Haight said the residents would have intellectual and developmental disabilities and could include people with mild intellectual disability, autism or neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis.
“ We do not serve people from an adjudicated background, treatment facility or anyone with sexual or criminal behavior,” Haight said. “Springbrook invests heavily in property upkeep — landscaping, driveways and finishings — and we maintain our homes with our own crews.”
Several neighbors asked whether the presence of the home would depress property values and what safeguards exist. Resident Brian Casey asked whether sex offenders would live in the house and whether law enforcement had ever been called. Haight said there has never been an incident involving a resident being “taken away with handcuffs,” though staff have contacted authorities in instances such as a resident getting lost or for health concerns.
Deputy Town Attorney Mark Spinner told the public the Town’s ability to block the facility is narrow under state law. “There is a very limited set of reasons why the board could object,” Spinner said, pointing to potential over‑concentration of similar facilities in a neighborhood or suggesting an alternative site if one exists. “New York State governs the law for this approval process; the Board does not have a lot of Home Rule authority.”
Supervisor Robert Mack said the town’s experience with group homes has produced few complaints beyond parking; he added that the town typically seeks larger properties, often five‑bedroom houses, for these programs. Councilman Joseph P. Nirchi Sr., a former Endicott police officer, said he could not recall a time when police were called to one of the group homes for criminal behavior and emphasized the residents are not criminals.
Several local residents and former employees praised Springbrook’s maintenance and care. Joe Picaila, who said he worked for Springbrook, described the facilities as well maintained and noted residents’ satisfaction. Resident John Solak asked how sites are chosen; Haight said Springbrook typically searches multiple listing services.
No formal vote on the proposal was recorded at the meeting. The public hearing provided residents an opportunity to ask questions and to hear the provider and town counsel explain the limits of the town’s authority under state law. Next steps were not specified during the meeting.
