[ad_1]
NEWBURY, Vermont – More than 100 community members came to a Newbury Development Review Board hearing primarily to voice their opposition to a proposed six-bed safe residential treatment facility for young people.
Their presence at the Saturday hearing, held via Zoom and in person in the elementary school gymnasium, added to the dozens of emails and other communications the board received ahead of the five a.m. hearing, which the council finally decided to continue later this month.
As they did for online forums held last winter and at a public hearing on land use in August, community members expressed concerns about the safety of the facility, as well as the suitability of the location, given its rural nature and location. its distance from services such as the police; and the potential impact on the surrounding environment.
“It was the most controversial project in Newbury for over 30 years here,” said Larry Scott, a board alternate who chaired the hearing.
The proposed Covered Bridge Treatment Center in Newbury would replace the old Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center in Essex, Vt, which closed last fall with no residents occupying the 30 beds in the establishment similar to a prison and that the state faced legal battles over employee backgrounds. use of restraint among young people.
The new processing center would be located on a 280-acre property at the end of rural Stevens Place, west of Interstate 91. The property is owned by the Vermont Permanency Initiative, one of the groups at nonprofit known jointly as the Becket Family of Services, which is based in Orford.
It would be leased to the Vermont Department for Children and Families and operated by Becket.
It is planned to accommodate up to six boys aged 11 to 17 in a former guest room.
In 2013, Becket converted the property into a less restrictive 12-bed treatment center, with unlocked windows and doors.
Current plans for the 9,500 square foot building include redeveloping the basement and the northern half of the ground floor, adding approximately 500 square feet of interior space by fencing an existing porch over the floors. two levels. Plans also call for building approximately 4,500 square feet of fenced outdoor recreational facilities and reconfiguring the parking lot to provide space for up to 21 cars.
Officials previously said they expected renovations to total around $ 3.2 million and the facility’s annual operating budget to be around $ 3 million.
Each boy in the secure facility is expected to stay and receive treatment there for about four months, before receiving a different level of treatment, either at home or at another institution, state officials said.
The facility will be staffed with a maximum of around 15 counselors, housekeepers and cooks at all times.
The state currently lacks such facilities, but there are young people who could benefit from the safe and supportive environment the project aims to create, said Jay Wolter, president of Becket.
“I think we can mitigate the risk,” Wolter said.
Newbury residents did not appear convinced and many said they did not think the proposed location was appropriate.
The “Conservation Commission is against this,” said Michael Thomas, the commission’s chairman, during the public comment portion of the hearing. He said the project “is not suitable” for the conservation district where the proposed facility would be located.
Scotch Hollow Road widow Jane Parsons Klein, a widow, said she feared one of the young inmates at the facility might escape.
“I know you say it’s very rare to have a runaway, but what if there is?” Klein said.
Board member Bobbie Jewett asked Major James Whitcomb, Vermont State Police Field Force Division Commander, to provide an estimate of response time in the event of an emergency in the ‘installation.
But, he refused, saying the response time would depend on the situation and where the soldiers were at the time.
It is “not something that I am ready to give you,” he said.
Lara Saffo, compliance officer for Becket, who was previously the chief prosecutor for Grafton County, said the treatment center would issue an emergency alert to neighbors and others if any of the youngsters escaped.
She offered to have someone drive to alert neighbors who might not have a landline, cell service or internet, and provide area residents with a safe place to go in such a situation.
But, she said, the project itself will help make everyone safer.
The “best way to protect us all is to get these children treated before they reach adulthood (and identify) the root cause of their behavior and help them heal,” Saffo said. .
John Anderson, the attorney representing Becket Family Services and the Vermont Department for Children and Families Seeking Board Approval, sought to draw the board’s attention to a narrow range of things such as the density of the project.
“We meet all the recoil requirements very, very easily,” he said.
He also said that while the facility may increase traffic on the rural route, it could drop it from one car per hour to two or three. The traffic engineer for the project found “a number of places in the region where a very rural area has at least this amount of traffic,” he said.
Although Anderson has said he does not believe the Development Review Board has authority over security matters, the project architect and other consultants have sought to allay people’s concerns, saying the windows and doors would be secured, that there would be a 12-foot fence surrounding an outdoor recreation area and control center outside the secure facility in which employees would monitor cameras scattered around the area. building.
“When kids are in a crisis, we want to keep them safe and keep the community safe,” said Penny Sampson, consultant for the Massachusetts-based Council for Juvenile Justice Administrators project.
In addition to the conditional use permit from the Development Review Board, the project is also subject to a review under Bill 250 by the Natural Resources Review Board.
It will need to be licensed by both the Vermont Department for Children and Families and the Agency of Education.
Neither the state property lease nor the contract to operate the processing center has yet been finalized, officials said on Saturday.
The Development Review Board continued its hearing until October 21 at 6 p.m. at Newbury Primary School and via Zoom. The council asked community members to file written comments by October 18.
Before the end of the hearing for the day, Scott, the alternate board who chaired the meeting, said: “This is a very difficult question.”
Nora Doyle-Burr can be reached at [email protected] or 603-727-3213.
[ad_2]
Source link