43
Poland's controversial group home ordinance draws crowd
POLAND VILLAGE
State-level disability-rights advocates made the trek from Columbus to Poland Village Hall Tuesday to comment on controversial group home legislation being considered by council.
The first two discussions of the ordinance to limit the concentration of group homes occurred largely outside public input. The first discussion took place on Election Night, and the second took place 15 minutes before council’s Nov. 20 meeting.
Tuesday’s third discussion was no different. Despite the full pews, council went into executive session shortly after the meeting began, but not before the audience conveyed its concern.
Rebecca Babarsky, an attorney with Disability Rights Ohio, questioned the legality of the ordinance, which proposes that a group home cannot be established within 500 feet of another group home.
“The [federal Fair Housing Act] recognizes people with disabilities’ right to live in the community, just like anybody else. ... This ordinance would directly affect the people we represent,” Babarsky said.
Additionally, Babarsky explained that the ordinance’s stated intent “seems to suggest that [it aims] to impact these individuals in their homes.”
She added that even if the legislation is not determined to have discriminatory intent, it can be challenged through requests for reasonable accommodation.
Susan Maruca, a local attorney whose 17-year-old daughter is disabled, voiced support for group homes being near each other.
This community is “about finding pockets of people like you, and so why would I put [my daughter] in an alienated place where nobody is like her?”
Susan and her husband, Chris Maruca, threatened further legal action if the ordinance is successful.
“If it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If we have to go the distance to determine this is a duck, we’re going to do it,” Susan Maruca said.
Councilwoman Linda Srnec responded to the commentary with concerns about traffic caused by group homes. “The thing that is difficult is that we have little children in our community,” she said.
Chris Maruca rejected this contention.
“This is nothing but an ordinance to try to exclude a certain population, and my wife and I will not stand for it,” he said.
Before the invitation for public comment, Mayor Tim Sicafuse explained to the audience that the ordinance had been reviewed extensively and would be discussed in executive session.
Village Solicitor Jay Macejko refused to confirm that the legislation was the subject of the private session.
The reason cited for the executive session was “matters to be kept confidential.”
According to Ohio sunshine laws, executive sessions can be conducted only for discussion of specific personnel matters, purchase or sale of property, pending or imminent court action, collective bargaining matters, matters required to be kept confidential, security matters, hospital trade secrets or confidential business information of an applicant for economic assistance.
Upon returning from executive session, Macejko recommended that the first reading of the ordinance be tabled, and council unanimously agreed.