Danbury planning commission hears plan to convert MCCA offices into 16-bed recovery residential program

The Danbury Planning Commission closed a public hearing on March 4 on an application by the Western Connecticut Council on Alcoholism (MCCA) to revise a previously approved site plan and special exception to convert office space into a 16-bed residential program at 38 Old Ridgebury Road.

The applicant’s engineer, Mike Mazuko, told the commission the work is primarily interior reconfiguration rather than new construction: administrative offices will largely move off-site, existing office space will be converted into sleeping rooms and support spaces, a small number of parking spaces near a loading area will be removed to improve access, and a privacy fence will be added around an existing patio. Mazuko said the site is about 3.85 acres in the CA-80 zone, lies in the Lake Kenosha Class 2 watershed, and that the project preserves much of the existing landscaping.

John DeRaimo, president and CEO of MCCA, said 12 administrative staffers will relocate off-site and the new residential program will have roughly 4–5 daytime staff and two staff each on evening and night shifts. He said the 16 clients expected for the program are typically early in recovery and most do not have vehicles, and that a net reduction in daily vehicle trips is likely compared with the prior administrative staffing level.

Neighborhood representatives spoke in favor. Paul Rotello, who said he represents the 6th Ward, called MCCA “a great asset to the community” but asked on the record whether additional beds would increase traffic and pedestrian activity; DeRaimo and the applicant’s engineer responded that parking counts showed no additional required spaces and staff reductions were expected to reduce vehicle trips. Ellen Mari, a nearby resident, said she has lived in the area 24 years and described MCCA as a good neighbor, while asking that on-site administrative oversight be maintained.

Planning staff (Ally) told the commission that, given the scope of interior work, the project had not been transmitted to the traffic engineer for review and that there were no outstanding departmental reports that represented ‘‘deal breakers.’’ The applicant acknowledged some technical comments from construction services and the fire marshal and said the design team had incorporated many review items; the applicant also noted an anticipated increase in wastewater flows of about 1,100 gallons overall.

With public comment closed, commissioners discussed the matter in old business. Several commissioners said the application appeared to have minimal exterior impacts, that neighbors expressed support, and they asked staff to prepare a draft resolution and conditions for formal action at a future meeting.

The commission did not record a formal approval vote during this meeting; staff was directed to draft the resolution and conditions for the next agenda.