The application for this clinic was the subject of 3 public hearings in 2020, after which the Commission voted 4-3 in favor of approval. However, this is considered a denial under the City Charter, which stipulates that 5 affirmative votes are required for any Commission action. The Root Center sued to overturn the decision, arguing that our Charter's requirement was in violation of State statutes. The Superior Court agreed with the Root Center, essentially overturning this part of our City Charter.
The City, represented by Christopher Forte, appealed this decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court, but it also entered into negotiations with the Root Center. Those negotiations led to an agreement that gave the Root Center what it wanted--permission to build a Methadone Clinic at 392 Washington Street. Attorney Forte told the Commissioners:
[You] agree to grant a reasonable accommodation ... . You are not approving a zone change, you are not granting a special exception, you are granting a reasonable accommodation, which you are empowered to do under the ADA (the federal law that comes down and replaces zoning in this case), ... give them permission to operate.
The agreement specifies a number of conditions that the Root Center must meet, largely around issues of loitering, parking, and public safety. In addition, both the Root Center and the city must abide by the findings of the state Department of Transportation with respect to the traffic and safety impacts of the methadone clinic. All of the major conditions were already present in the original application, which went through numerous Public Hearings and revisions in 2020.
Both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court need to take action before this agreement is in effect.
[Disclosure: I was on the Commission at the time of the original application; I voted in favor]
1 comment:
"...so that issue will be saved for another day." More like, so that issue will be saved for EVERY DAY an applicant gets a similar result. So we have kept our charter intact but unenforceable?
Waiting for a ruling would have played out two ways: A favorable ruling would have supported our charter's voting requirements for all future applications. An unfavorable ruling would have let us know that we should align our charter with state statutes or, as we have now, set ourselves up for an endless cycle of litigation and capitulation. Why does it feel like every time you say granting a reasonable accommodation you have to use air quotes and wink?
I assume we have also thrown in some sweet tax abatements. At least we are holding our ground on parking requirements (this time).
I guess they are taking on Hartford now. It will be interesting to see how Hartford’s zoning regs (and commission) hold up.
https://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-news-hartford-methadone-clinic-zoning-20220810-p6agoamnsrfijcxyavor6om6xa-story.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Don%27t%20Miss&utm_content=5581660154943
Post a Comment