City homeless shelter plan rejected
DANBURY — The future of a homeless shelter is uncertain after the Zoning Commission rejected regulation changes that would have paved the way for the facility to operate permanently out of a former motel.
A 6-3 vote this week was a victory for residents near the Super 8 motel property who have fought the plan, citing public safety and other concerns. The commission denied the proposal for those reasons and several others.
“It definitely changes the character of the neighborhood,” commission member Candace Fay said at Tuesday’s meeting. “I think there is a place here in Danbury. I just don’t think this is it.”
But the decision was a blow to city and state officials who have rallied around the plan, arguing this type of shelter offers a better way to address homelessness. Pacific House, a Stamford-based nonprofit, has planned to run an 86-room facility that provides supportive services for those experiencing homelessness.
“The era of congregate or so-called dormitory style shelters is over,” said Tim Hollister, attorney for Pacific House. “Even if, when, COVID subsides, so-called single-room occupancy is the new, national official model for sheltering the homelessness.”
Homeless individuals have been staying at the facility for most of the coronavirus pandemic under the governor’s executive orders, which expire in February. The state housing department worked with Pacific House to use $4.63 million in federal funds to purchase the property.
“Although the Department is disappointed in the decision by the Danbury Zoning Commission, we are committed to working with the City of Danbury to address their growing homeless issue,” said Aaron Turner, spokesman for the state housing department. “The current operation of the facility continues to be unaffected, as the Governor’s emergency declaration is in place until mid-February.”
Hollister said Wednesday morning he and the applicants will need to discuss what to do next.
“The era of congregate or so-called dormitory style shelters is over. Even if, when, COVID subsides, so-called single-room occupancy is the new, national official model for sheltering the homelessness.” Tim Hollister, attorney for Pacific House
Nor does he know what would happen to the shelter clients if the governor’s executive powers are not renewed.
“It will make a complicated situation even more so,” he said. “But what will happen, what the plan will be, what the legal issues might be I can’t predict at this point. I will say we were surprised by the vote, we thought we had made a very good cause for moving to the next step.”
Rafael Pagan Jr., executive director of Pacific House, said he was “dumbfounded” that the commission would “turn their back” on the state’s investment and the shelter clients, who he fears could end up on the streets. He would still like to run the shelter there.
“We’re exploring our options as we move forward,” he said. “Our intent is to stay and continue our effort and see where it leads us.”
Danbury Mayor Joe Cavo said he was “disappointed” in the vote, but that he’d ideally like to see the shelter operate at the property.
“I don’t know next steps at the moment,” he said Wednesday. “We’re certainly going to take a step back and look at this. It’s my intention, and I think it’s the city’s intention, that we’re going to have to deal with homelessness in our community, and we’re going to work to support homeless folks in our community.”
Tuesday’s vote followed roughly 20 hours of public hearings and discussion on the proposal. In public meetings, residents have threatened to sue if the plan were approved.
Among the several reasons the commission denied the application was concerns that the application could be viewed as “spot zoning,” which is illegal, because few areas besides the Super 8 property would qualify for the proposed regulation changes.
Applicants sought a zone change to allow a shelter in the CA-80 zone, an arterial commercial district that includes the Super 8 motel property at 3 Lake Ave. Extension. Other changes, including changing the existing definitions of a “dwelling unit” and “shelter for the homeless,” as well as creating a new definition for the term “transitional shelter for the homeless,” were rejected, as well.
The applicant would have needed to seek a special permit from the Planning Commission before the shelter could become officially permanent. That would have given the city more “scrutiny” over the shelter, Cavo said. He said he’s worried that under any new plan, the city wouldn’t have that same control.
Pacific House has already tried to seek a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but withdrew that application following backlash.
Commission member Robert Melillo argued in support of the shelter and its place in the commercial district because it would provide programs, such as job training or addiction help.
“Those services are vital, and they’re going to be part of the unit, which means you’re going to need a larger facility,” he said.
In his final arguments Tuesday night, Hollister said the disruptions that residents previously described couldn’t be blamed solely on the shelter. Still, Pacific House has 16 security cameras at the facility, and last week contracted with a security company that will patrol the parking lot and perimeter of the property from 4 to 10 p.m.
Pacific House has said it plans to provide 48 supportive housing units, with the rest of the rooms for emergency beds. Only emergency beds are open so far, with a renovation planned, Hollister said. Average nighttime occupancy has been about 50 to 60, he said. That means it’s not the “mega shelter” neighbors have feared, he said.
Neighbors have argued Danbury should have smaller shelters that provide support to city residents.
The shelter is “regional” because all facilities like this take in clients from various communities through the coordinated access network, a referral process that connects individuals to shelters and support, Hollister said. Most clients listed Danbury as their most recent address, he said.
“Limiting the facility to what you might try to call Danbury residents is simply not realistic,” Hollister said.