Planning Board members Tim Kearney and Mike Sadowski discuss a proposal for a rehabilitation facility in downtown Greenville. (Photo by Ashley Saari)
Deliberations will continue on a proposed substance rehabilitation center in downtown Greenville, as the Planning Board continues to craft potential conditions for the facility.
The proposal would renovate one of the town’s empty former mill buildings into a 66-bed facility, with parking both on-site and at a nearby lot.
On Thursday, the board held its second deliberation meeting on the project. In January, during the first round of deliberations, the board took a straw poll in which members indicated they would be willing to approve the facility, with conditions. The meeting was continued to Thursday, to give board members and the board’s attorney time to craft potential conditions.
On Thursday, the board reviewed those potential conditions and slightly changed or added some. Eventually, the meeting was continued until next month to allow the board’s attorney to craft official language for the conditions.
The board discussed conditions that would have to be completed before the approval would become official. They included completing a site plan approval for the off-site parking, shoreland permits for the old mill parcel and the parking lot, a stormwater management plan, a permit for sewer connection to the building and merging the two lots the mill sits on, or otherwise creating a covenant that the lots cannot be sold separately.
Any appeal of the Planning Board’s decision on the application can only be filed after all those conditions are met and the project fully approved.
After the plans have been officially approved, the board discussed multiple conditions that would be placed on the facility and how it is run. Several of the conditions are related to safety and tracking the impact of such a facility on the town’s emergency responders, which has been a main point of concern for the Planning Board during their discussion of the application.
In one of the conditions, the board sought to test the waters of what the impact of the facility could be by requiring phasing. The facility could open with 22 of its eventually intended 66 beds. After a year, they could double that, and after two years, operate fully.
The facility would be required to report to the Select Board reports of emergency service use, whether that be police, fire, ambulance or Department of Public Works. The initial proposal for that condition was an annual report, but Select Board ex-officio Kathleen McNamara indicated she’d like to see it more often than that, perhaps as often as quarterly, at least initially.
Several conditions relate to patient tracking and safety.
Over the course of the hearing, board members have expressed concerns about the fact that the facility would mainly house patients there voluntarily. While checked in, patients do not have the ability to leave the facility at will, but can check out at their own discretion. The board discussed conditions including alarmed doors and recording entrances, with recordings kept for at least 30 days. If a patient does check out early, the facility would be required to notify the Police Department within 30 minutes. No patient would be allowed to keep a car on the premises.
The board discussed a new condition during Thursday’s hearing, to require that the facility remain an in-patient facility, rather than a clinic where people may come to receive medication such as methadone. The board agreed to add that condition.
The facility would be required hold an evacuation training at least as often as every six months. Patients must be able to self-evacuate in the case of an emergency. Patient access to the roof and the river must be restricted.
The board discussed several conditions aimed to keep the facility a treatment center for short timeframes, rather than a rooming house or sober living facility. Patients would be able to spend no more than 60 days in the facility every 12 months, and it cannot be converted into housing. Patients taken in by the facility must have a physical address on record.
Other conditions include an operations manual for stormwater management, which must be up to date annually; notification of where snow storage is to be; that the building maintains Americans with Disabilities Act compliance; and that the facility remains licensed by the New Hampshire Health and Human Services Department.
The board directed its attorney to make the changes and additions discussed during Thursday’s meeting, and return next month to continue deliberations into a third session. The board set the next meeting on the facility for March 13 at 6 p.m. at the Mascenic SAU offices.
This article is being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.
