Plan for homeless shelter faces growing opposition
Some cite concerns on crime and other issues in battling conversion of motel
DANBURY — Opposition is building to the plan to turn a former motel into a permanent homeless shelter.
Citing concerns about crime and other problems, residents decried the idea this past week at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Resident Jeff Berlant, who lives on Fairlawn Avenue about a half-mile from the property, said the area has changed since the Super 8 Motel became a place to house those without homes last year due to COVID-19. Berlant said he and his neighbors have seen an increase in drug dealing in the area, among other issues, prompting families to put up neighborhood watch signs.
“That’s how scared our community is,” he said. “That’s not fair.”
The state closed on the purchase of the Super 8 two weeks ago, giving a $4.63 million federal grant to Pacific House, a Stamford
based nonprofit, to buy the building. The nonprofit operates the shelter and provides supportive services.
The plan for the 3 Lake Ave. Extension property is to offer 48 supportive housing rooms and 36 units as an emergency shelter, said Rafael Pagan, Jr., executive director of Pacific House.
Individuals will receive case management services, with the goal of finding them permanent housing. The city and nonprofit have placed 114 individuals into permanent housing since moving to the motel, he said.
The board received more than two dozen letters of support from the project, many from agencies that work with homeless individuals.
This type of shelter is expected to be the future of homeless services.
“We’re excited that Danbury is on the forefront of this and has really served as a model not only for the state of Connecticut, but for the entire nation,” said Steve DiLella, director of individual and family support programs for the state Department of Housing.
Nearly two dozen letters of opposition are filed online, but the board received additional letters that were also read during the meeting. It took about an hour and 20 minutes of the five-hour meeting for city staff to read these letters, compared to about 35 minutes for the letters in support.
The board continued the public hearing to its May 27 meeting.
Motel vs. shelter
The nonprofit seeks a use variance from the board because shelters are not normally permitted in this zone.
Attorney Ward Mazzucco argued concerns about transmission of COVID-19 constitutes as a “hardship” that should allow the nonprofit to get the use variance. A shelter is similar to a motel anyway because both guests are transient, he said.
“The only difference, really, is that at a hotel you pay to stay there and here a homeless shelter the residents are not paying to be present,” he said.
Resident Benjamin Doto scoffed.
“When was the last time he [Mazzucco] accidentally checked into a homeless shelter on a business trip or in his travels,” Doto said.
He and others argued the shelter should seek a change to the zoning regulations, rather than a use variance.
The motel is a “functionally obsolete” building because it could not keep up with competition from nearby hotels Mazzucco said. The building is also “isolated” from nearby commercial properties, such as McDonald’s and Dunkin, as well as a Danbury Housing Authority building, he said
Putting the shelter near the housing authority property where low-income residents live is “discriminatory,” Doto said.
“These residents are Danbury residents,” he said. “They count just as much as a homeowner does. To treat a tenant differently and just shove it down their throat is just inappropriate.”
Neighborhood concerns
Many of the residents opposed the project because they worried about the effect it would have on their neighborhoods. The shelter is about a half mile from Westside Middle School and Mill Ridge Primary School.
Police Chief Patrick Ridenhour said officers would respond when called to criminal activity in nearby neighborhoods.
But he said there has been no increase in workload or call volume due to those without homes moving to the Super 8.
Police records show about 535 calls to service to Super 8 from March to August 2020, but around 90 percent of those were “proactive property checks that were not related to a specific problem at the facility,” Ridenhour said.
Just as police did at the New Street and Dorothy Day shelters, officers patrol the parking lot at Super 8 to ensure there are no problems, he said.
From September 2020 to the present, there were 153 calls logged, with 45 of those being property checks and 108 being “actual” calls, Ridenhour said.
The number of calls, including property checks and preventative patrols, were 33 percent less at the shelter from November 2020 to March 2021 compared to the number of calls to New Street and Dorothy Day from November 2019 to March 2020, he said.
A resident on Ridge Road who lives about a half-mile from the property said he is not aware of any “unwelcomed incidents” over the past year.
“The location is discrete and would be suitable for this use given its relative location to current public housing,” resident Andrew Wetmore wrote to the board.
But Doto, who also lives on Ridge Road, said he is worried he’ll see the problems he experienced at his downtown property near the city’s older shelters. He’s had clean up after individuals went to the bathroom on his Main Street property.
“This was a routine event,” he said. “I’m sure it’s going to continue on the west side of town.”
Attorney Neil Marcus, who represents Maron Hotel & Suites down the road and the Dunkin across the street, opposed plan because of its location. The Dunkin closed because guests at the shelter would wander over and sit in the parking lot, he said.
“This will affect properties in the neighborhood,” he said. “You don’t have to worry about that. It already has.”
Marcus represented Dorothy Day in its unsuccessful lawsuit against Zoning Board of Appeals’ shutdown order.
“I’m 100 percent in favor of doing everything we can do (for people experiencing homelessness) but we’ve got to do it right,” he said.