neighborhood and that there was a liquor store and a drug house very close by. She stated that there were many problems with this request including no cameras in the back of the building for protection. She stated that her nephews back yard would no longer be safe since this building extended all the way back on that property. She stated that she truly did not believe that this was the place for a facility such as this and that there were better buildings for this. She stated that none of the neighbors were in support and that she was shocked that more of them were not present. She stated that since they had people already living in the building back in November that maybe some of the neighbors thought that this was approved. She stated that just visiting the property once a day to check on the residents would not be enough and questioned how they would actually be keeping tabs on everyone. She stated that her concern was her nephews who did not choose addiction or jail but would the ones most affected by this facility.

Ms. Mathewson asked if Ms. Privett knew the last time that the building was occupied.

Ms. Privett stated that it had been a church and that she also believed everyone deserved a chance but not here.

Adrian Joseph, 3201 E. Wysor St., Muncie, Indiana, appeared in opposition. She stated that she lived directly behind the property. She stated that she was in support of people getting help but that this was not the right place. She stated that she had lived there for 15 years and that the house across the street had the police there, thousands of times and that nothing had been done. She stated that her concerns were for all of the children on the neighborhood and asked why they couldn’t look for a building that was not in the neighborhood. She stated that her daughter could barely see and that she had concerns of who might come up to her or if the criminal background checks would be accurate.

Mary Jo McCormick, 4605 W. Bayswater, Muncie, Indiana, appeared in opposition. She stated that her daughter lived on Claypool and had some concerns. She stated that the applicant mentioned a strict policy of a 10:00 curfew and asked what would happen if a resident missed that time. She asked if they would just lock the doors leaving a person would be outside to wander the neighborhood. She stated that police presence in the neighborhood was very lacking and that they needed more cameras around the building. She stated that she had never used drugs but as a 77-year-old woman, she knew right where to go in the neighborhood to get them. She stated that she would babysit and liked to sit and look out the windows and that she had concerns about who might be walking by now and that there was a liquor store just right down the street. She stated that this sounds wonderful and maybe they would do a good job, but that this was not the right location.

Jeff Kennedy, 415 N. Biltmore, Muncie, Indiana, appeared in opposition. He stated that he understood recovery and had nothing against that. He stated that there were already problems in the neighborhood with addicts and people stealing and that he had concerns that with the people that would come here would this make it worse. He stated that this was not a good fit for this neighborhood.