SAXTONS RIVER — As your last edition of The Commons notes, “The conversation continues” about the Bellows Falls Warming Shelter (BFWS). It is an important issue and one that understandably evokes quite a lot of emotion, as the letters from your readers have demonstrated.
But I think it is also important for your readers to have the correct facts upon which to make an informed judgment on this matter.
The main purpose of this letter is to do just this - provide some facts - although at times I could not resist adding some of my own opinions as well.
In considering an application for a “use permit,” the Rockingham Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission are required to determine that the application conforms to and will not adversely affect the following:
1. The capacity of existing or planned community facilities;
2. The character of the area;
3. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity;
4. The zoning bylaws in effect; and
5. The utilization of renewable energy resources.
The Zoning Board found that BFWS application complied with items 4 and 5 above.
As to item 1, the members of the Zoning Board were equally divided. Most of the discussion on this item, in both the Zoning Board and public, has centered on the Bellows Falls Police Department. Also, the scope of police involvement seems to have been used by the critics of the BFWS application to point to a negative impact on the character of the area.
For example, in Cass Wright's letter [“Attacks on BF unfair, unwarranted,” Voices, Jan. 4], he states that Police Department night shift calls last year “from or about the Warming Shelter totaled close to 30.”
The number of police incident reports supplied to the Zoning Board in connection with consideration of BFWS application were 25, which I could equally characterize as “just over 20.”
But wait! Of those 25 reports (I have read each one), four were clearly introduced in error, since none of the incidents took place at or in the vicinity of the proposed BFWS, nor was the shelter mentioned therein in any way, shape, or form.
That leaves 21. Of these, the police themselves referred or actually transported four homeless people to the shelter. We must be grateful to the Police Department for its assistance and compassion.
Also, one report is a duplicate, in the sense that the police allowed a homeless individual to take shelter overnight in the police station, which required two incident reports. Again, the Police Department helpfully stepped into the breach.
Of the remaining 17 incidents, five were initiated by the BFWS staff on duty and included two emergency calls for guests who were suffering medical conditions.
We are left with 12 incident reports, among which it was conjectured on more than one occasion, for example, that this or that particular individual might “possibly” be going to the BFWS.
I think that the above analysis leaves the reader with a vastly different impression about the BFWS from that conveyed by Mr. Wright.
As to the capacity of the Bellows Falls Police Department to handle 21 incidents in a year, it should be noted that the department responded to “close to” 5,000 incidents last calendar year within the village of Bellows Falls - 4,612, to be precise.
Can anyone seriously argue that incidents concerning the BFWS “adversely impacted” its capacity to carry out its duties?
It is quite incomprehensible to me that three members of the Zoning Board voted so. Perhaps those members will kindly inform the public whether indeed they read each of those police reports with the care and attention that due diligence requires.
As to item 2, the character of the area, critics have argued the shelter adversely affects them because of increased noise and activity during the evening hours. Three members of the Zoning Board agreed and three did not.
The shelter holds a maximum of 15 persons. On the occasions I served as a volunteer, there was an average of only about eight to 10 guests a night.
The shelter is located in the basement of a commercial building which also houses a pizza restaurant and tax assistance business. Other businesses in the area include two gas stations and an auto parts store. There are also residential properties nearby.
The shelter is open from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m., when its doors are closed. The guests are required to leave by 7 a.m. The pizza restaurant stays open until 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
This restaurant would likely be the principal source of any noise emanating from the parking lot. Do the complainants have evidence to the contrary? Given these facts, how could three members of the Zoning Board rationally conclude that the shelter has an adverse impact on the area?
The “character” of this area is not determined by a below-ground shelter with very limited open evening hours for only five months of the year, any more than a person's character is defined by a wart on his nose.
To the extent that there is any negative effect on nearby residences, BFWS has offered to build a fence between the properties, provide landscaping, and change the location of the entry door.
It is ludicrous to suggest that traffic in the vicinity is any real issue. As a volunteer at the shelter, I have never heard of a homeless person arriving in a car, with the exception of the three persons who were conveyed there by the police.
Only the staff and volunteers arrive by car. (The one staff member leaves around 7 p.m., after the two volunteers arrive. Two volunteers arrive just before 1 a.m. to relieve those already on duty. We all take particular care to minimize any noise.
There are “close to” 30 marked parking places at the building and ample extra unmarked spaces at the rear and south sides of the building. I have never at any time observed that the parking lot was even “close to” full.
And once the tax assistance office is closed at 5 p.m., even more parking is available as staff and clients depart two hours before the shelter opens.
One board member even suggested the desirability of having a traffic study undertaken - at taxpayers' expense, of course. What a ridiculous idea, so ridiculous that I can only conclude that traffic was raised simply as another trumped-up matter deliberately designed to torpedo the proposed shelter.
Complainants seem to have a short and partial memory. Before the arrival of H & R Block, that firm's office space was occupied by a video store. I recall that that store stayed open until 11 p.m. or midnight with customers frequently arriving and departing in their vehicles until late at night. Where were the complaints about noise or traffic then?
The Zoning Board had no problem in permitting that store to operate, even though it had an “adult” section, ironically located, I believe, in the very area used by the BFWS last year.
Mr. Wright suggests that unless you live in Bellows Falls, you should keep out of the discussion. A strange form of democracy indeed. Are those who live in and pay their taxes to the town of Rockingham, or spend their income in Bellows Falls, to be excluded from offering an opinion on a matter under the purview of the town zoning board?
Mr. Wright indicates that he is not opposed to having a shelter in Bellows Falls. It is just that he opposes the proposed location. This sounds awfully like “excellent idea, but not in my backyard.”
Would I welcome a shelter close to my own house? Perhaps not, although I am ashamed to admit it. Would I oppose such a shelter? I hope not.
You will recall that Jesus was asked the question: “Who is thy neighbor?” In response, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Is not the homeless man seeking shelter in Bellows Falls as much my neighbor as the homeless man in Saxtons River?