By Jean Doran Matua, Editor
There were two public hearings in the city of Watkins Wednesday evening, Aug. 1, scheduled one after the other, and across the street from each other.
First, the Board of Adjustment discussed granting a variance to the Watkins Baseball Association to build a heated, steel building for indoor practice. The building is to be located along the north edge of the field, behind the first-base bleachers. No one attended the meeting to voice objection, and Matt Geislinger arrived to answer questions on behalf of the Baseball Association. The variance was granted, unanimously. The next step is for the Baseball Association to apply for a land use permit.
Across the street, in Village Hall, the second hearing began at 7 p.m. with about 20 local residents in attendance. All were opposed to the proposed zoning amendment requested by Northstar Behavioral Health in St. Paul. The request was to add language to the existing ordinance that would allow for residential facilities licensed under Chapter 245G. The current ordinance reads as follows, with the requested addition in bold and italics:
ARTICLE XVI
R-1 – Residential District
Section 16.02. USES REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. The following uses may be permitted with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the approval of the City Council.
H. State licensed residential facilities serving from seven (7) to sixteen (16) mentally or physically challenged persons, and licensed and registered as specified under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 144D, or as amended or; a state licensed day care facility serving from thirteen (13) to sixteen (16) children, as regulated under Minnesota rules, Chapter 9502, or as amended or; state licensed residential facilities serving from seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons and licensed and registered under Chapter 245G, or as amended.
The hearing was presided over by the Watkins Planning Commission, with the city clerk and the city’s attorney also there.
Luke Wentlandt, Partner and VP of Operations of Northstar Behavioral Health, introduced himself and provided some information about their planned use of the Watkins House building on 4th Street in Watkins. They would lease the building, and run an in-patient “pretty damn close-to-a-hospital” facility for opioid-addicted individuals there. A 1:1 staff:client ratio, with 7-16 individuals under 24/7 supervised care for 90 days each. About 15-20 percent of their clients are court-ordered; the remainder come voluntarily. The clients have a regimented day, from 5:30 a.m. to lights-out at 11 p.m., with scheduled group therapy, group meals, breaks throughout the day. They schedule off-site trips and activities Saturdays, and they can receive visitors Thursday nights and Sundays. Clients would be transported to St. Cloud to be administered methadone or other drug treatment; such drugs would not be kept on-site in Watkins. Clients may leave the building for smoking breaks, but are immediately discharged from the program if they walk away from it.
One by one (and often several at a time) residents stood to present their concerns and fears of having an opioid-treatment facility in town. Some lived next door, across the street, or up the block. Some ran daycares, or had young children or grandchildren nearby. Most of the concerns were related to the safety of these children and of their families.
Specific issues residents expressed included:
• lack of added police coverage in town;
• low success rate of such programs, likely to repeat offenses, or come back to Watkins to do harm;
• clients stealing prescription drugs from nearby homes and nursing home;
• up to 16 clients taking multiple smoking breaks every day along their back- or side-yard;
• there’s nothing but three bars in town for recreation (not good for recovering addicts);
• some clients may have criminal records;
• property values would be lowered, or it could be impossible to sell their homes;
• parental fears could shut down nearby daycares;
• visitors could be drug dealers, not nice people;
• something this big should be voted on by the town;
• there’s no place to park for clients, staff, and visitors; what about additional traffic, or problems getting emergency vehicles through?
• the night shift won’t be 1:1 staffing;
• there is heightened anxiety after recent events in the area.
Some of the comments were made respectfully, and some attended the meeting earnestly seeking answers to their questions and concerns. A few brought their torches and pitchforks.
The public concerns could be summed up in quotes from two individuals: “People should have a second chance, but not next to me.” “You would all do anything to protect your kids or grandkids.”
After an hour, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. After about seven minutes of deliberation with the city attorney – focusing on the fact-based reasons to deny the zoning amendment – the commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the addition of Chapter 245G wording to the existing R-1 residential ordinance.
The council will hear and decide on the commission’s recommendation at their Aug. 9 regular meeting (it’s #8 on the agenda). All members of the city council were present at the hearing Wednesday, and heard the discussion on both sides.
If the council denies the zoning amendment, Northstar Behavioral Health could appeal their decision.