Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

Page 2 -- October i O. 200,4 Special Exception -- Neighbors challenge proposed drug treatment facility Lower court finds insztfficient e¥idence to deny 'e,¥ception request Citation: Municipal F,.mding LLC ,;. Zoning Board <f'Appealx of the Ci~/ of ~rerbu~/ S~tpreme Cou~ of Connecticut, No. SC 26934 (2004) CON%~CTICUW (08/03/0% ~ Mumcipal Funding LLC ~Zed an app~cation with the Zo~g Bo~d of Appeals of the City of Waterbury for a special exception to open a convalescent home on its prope~y. 3pe~cally, Municipal proposed utilizing its prope~y as a long-~e~, dmg- L-ee residential treatment facilky for adolescents and young adults with sub- stance abuse problems. Dunng a pubic he~ng, several neighborhood residents who lived near the proposed faciEty expressed thek conce~s about neighborhood safety. Ulti- mately, the bo~d denied Municipal's request based on thek testimony. Mumcipal sued, and the cou~ ruled in its favor, k found there was not enough evidence the proposed faci~ty would pose a t~eat ~o public sMety. ~e board appealed. DEC.ION: Reve~ed. There was substantial evidence supposing the board's d~nial. Mumcipal proposed ~o locate the facility in a residential neighborhood with a sign~'icant elderly population, a location where many residents wa~ed late mght and e~ty in ~he mo~ing. The adolescent and young aduk residents of the facility, who were refe~ed by the dep~ment o~ cogection and other agencies, would be engaged in an intensive, conYrontationa{ program, from which 30 percent of the pa~icipants would leave witNn the f~st 30 days. ~e proposed fac~U~ Would not have a sec~ force, nor would it have locks on the doors. Residents who decided to leave the program would i~ely leave on foot, as they would not be pe~tted to have motor veNcles at the facility. Although the facility would employ a total of 50 staff members, only ap- proxlmately 20 of them would be on duty dunng each shil~ to supervise 125 residents. Several neighbors testified dnfng the public hearing to being fea~l of the' fac~ty in the neighborhood and that they were concerned it would impair their quality of life. Consequently, there was s~bstantial evidence in the record ~o suppo~ the board's conclusion ~hat ~he proposed facility posed a threat to the su~ounding co~mnity, and a cou~ could not substkute its ~udgment for ~hat of the xe.~ ~lao: ?,~in '.,'. P~zm~i~g & Zorn?re, ~omm~,~ '~ ;,"~ot,, 711 ,~.Zd 675 142 · © 200,4:2uinlan :'~oiisn,~9 Group. -'nv 'eoroc~uc:~on s )romi:,ed :Zor .nora niormmion ~ie.:tse :afl 5~71. ,~4,'2-.3048.