KENT, Conn. — Alarmed by an application from High Watch Recovery Center to modify conditions imposed in its 2019 special permit, residents on Thursday, Nov. 13, packed an online meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The special permit allowed the center, which treats people with substance abuse issues, to expand its facilities to include a 12-bed detox facility by constructing a two-story building that included the medical treatment center and offices.
The Planning and Zoning Commission imposed 34 conditions on its approval of the application including limiting the recovery center to 90 beds, 12 of which would be for the detox facility.
Other conditions ensured that clients would not trespass on abutting properties; that Connecticut State Police and Kent’s first selectman will be immediately notified if any client is absent without leave; and dictate that no client would be accepted who is under the jurisdiction or custody of the Department of Corrections or whose admission to the detoxification facility was mandated by a state or federal court.
The detox center was to be separate from the rehabilitation facilities and to be secure against unauthorized entry or exit.
Under the special permit, a new lecture hall was to be constructed and the PZC limited its capacity to 218 seats and restricted its use to AA programs and programs in conjunction with client treatments.
Client admissions were confined to 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., with no emergency admissions. Other conditions called for the recovery center to contract with a private ambulance service for non-911 calls and not to use the public address system for other than emergency situations.
High Watch CEO Andrew Roberts presented the facility’s request to the commission, explaining that in the six years since the conditions were set, some of them are no longer appropriate and, in some cases, no longer legal.
Roberts has only been at the head of the recovery center for 20 months and said he had been “totally taken aback” by the tsunami of negative comments that had occurred in the previous 36 hours. “Something terrible must have happened in the past and I feel the need to apologize. I feel bad about that, and you have my word that going forward we will be transparent,” he said.
But, he continued, “the world changes and our intent is to be in compliance.” The zoning conditions that are not appropriate or legal “put High Watch at risk if they are not taken into consideration.”
He said that the request for two additional beds in the detox facility is made for clinical reasons and will not necessarily result in a growth of services. He reported that the facility is rarely full, but “insurance companies are not approving the same type of clients they did. There is more medical necessity and more beds would allow us to keep the sicker people in a medical setting longer.”
The second condition he wanted altered was the notification requirement, which he said violates HIPAA, (the privacy rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which established national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information). “We can’t identify people for medical reasons,” he said, adding that it is a “rare occurrence” for the treatment center to have to call state police.
“Not admitting clients who are under the jurisdiction or custody of the Department of Corrections or whose admission to the detoxification facility was mandated by an order of a state or federal court is discriminatory,” he argued. “We only admit people who are appropriate for this level of care and wouldn’t accept people who are violent criminals.”
Referring to the lecture hall, he said activities there are conducted in connection with the treatment of client or for training staff. “When it is not in conjunction with treatment, we seek [special event] permits. Attendance has never reached 200 people and any events happen between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.”
In the past, Roberts has expressed the hope that community programs could be presented in the new hall. “We’ve never heard anything about its use,” he said.
His next request was for an extension by 90 minutes of the timeframe during which clients can be admitted. He noted that coming to High Watch is a voluntary action on the part of clients who sometimes fly into Connecticut from across the country. “We would like the extra 90 minutes to accommodate those people arriving on late flights,” he explained.
As for the provision for private ambulances to transport non-911 clients, he said the Kent Volunteer Fire Department approached High Watch and asked that the facility use their ambulance, thereby bringing in insurance payments. “It was a practical arrangement for both parties,” he said.
Mary Ann VanValkenburg, chief of Kent’s ambulance service, said that the KVFD has found its experience with High Watch “pretty positive,” but added that she heard of the request for an increase in the number of detox beds only the day before. The KVFD asked that the public hearing to be continued so it could assess the impact on its service.
As to the public address system, Roberts said the facility had never had one, doesn’t want one, and he would like the condition stricken. “If we find we need one, we will come back to you,” he said.
A handful of neighbors offered testimony during the public hearing, criticizing the facility. Karen Altfest complained of the high volume of traffic on the road and suggested that it was generated by High Watch. “Their speed is in the 40s (mph) and it is dangerous for people walking and biking on the road,” she said. “With conferences at the lecture hall, it would increase.”
She further complained about “people strolling in the woods.” “I don’t want criminals walking in my woods,” she said. “It sure as hell scares me and is very frightening to myself and my family.”
Lynn Gray said that how High Watch deals with criminals is important. “Yeah, we want to help those people, but not so they are a danger. We don’t know what the security will be. Let’s help them, but let’s help them keep us safe, too. Kent should be very careful and have lot of regulations.”
Ellen Altfest complained that High Watch had not adhered to its allowance of one event per year and “flagrantly flaunts the rules of this town.”
She noted that the facility lost its court case seeking permission to build a large greenhouse because the Supreme Court sided with the town in finding it would be an expansion of its special permit. She contended that adding two beds would also expand the special permit.
“I do not trust them to choose the criminals,” she said. “They are wanting to change so there is no notification process if someone runs away. They have not proposed one thing to accommodate these criminals. They don’t do the bare minimum toward compliance.”
Roberts countered that the clients at High Watch are there voluntarily and are not in custody. “Let me clarify a couple of things that I hope will give people comfort,” he said. “No one comes to High Watch under the auspices of Department of Corrections. We are a completely voluntary organization where people come to resolve their problems. Some people have legal problems—they may have gone bankrupt, for instance—but no one is walking in the woods unattended. They come here of their own free will, and they are free people who can leave when they want.”
Lew Altfest said he is “suspicious” of High Watch because there had been “outrageous transgressions in the past” on the part of its administrators. “Now, they are trying to throw curveballs and not paying any respect [to the townspeople]. This criminal thing is concerning, not only for us on the road. Who wants to fill up Kent with criminals? … If they have to be there, we should be aware of the things that result in accepting and not accepting them.”
Warren First Selectman Greg LaCava wanted to learn more about the changing protocols. “In our area, not counting the Kent resident trooper, the state police are at least 25 minutes out and there is only one trooper on duty on weekends,” he said, adding he would like more information on the impact on services.
First Selectman Mary Lindenmayer, who leaves office Sunday, Nov. 16, said he “appreciates the concerns of neighbors,” and that the town is also concerned with safety and security, but said misinformation has been broadcast on social media.
“The word criminal is being thrown about here. Labeling anyone a criminal is not what this community has been about,” he said.
Commission members were also disturbed by the tone of the accusations. “A lot of words and adjectives have been thrown out tonight,” said Alice Hicks. “I don’t know if they are proper terms and I don’t know what specific event created the dialogue. I think I need a little more information about what the real complaint is.”
Sarah Chase also cautioned against the use of the word criminal. “I think it is a misused term here and we should be cautious about using it,” she said. “I think we have sufficiently heard from a small number of people who have been quite vocal.”
But all members agreed that a more extended discussion is needed to determine the effect on the ambulance corps and other issues. The hearing was continued until Thursday, Dec. 11.
Editor’s note: This story was edited Saturday, Nov. 15, to reflect the hours High Watch’s 2019 special permit cited as admission hours.
If the term “convict” or “criminal” is not appropriate for the 2 additional beds at High Watch, I apologize. From what I read online, the additional beds were for “convicted” persons. What that means specifically, I don’t know. Most of us know people or of people who have been through recovery of substances. Was the conviction a bankruptcy, spousal abuse or DUI resulting in the death of a driver or pedestrian? All which are not uncommon with substance abuse. And that High Watch residents are “free to leave” at their decision is unquieting in these cases. I totally understand neighbor’s concerns and I believe that Kent residents should be concerned too. I do not mean any disrespect nor prejudice for people seeking treatment, but I do believe the town needs to work with our State Trooper on who and what the convictions are for, as well as the security measures High Watch has in place.
One common theme in this town is some residents on some roads think the road is for their personal recreation, not for cars to travel on. It seems that some of these residents are chosing to ignore that the road in question is the only way to get from 341 to RT 7 without going into town or RT45. The irorny about their security concerns is that there is hardly any selective enforcement in this town and that people from other towns know this, and target Kent due to that lack of enforcement. If anyone wants to stroll in your woods, they can, not because of High Watch, but because there is a known lack of active enforcement. However, it is a great argument to make if you are lamenting your decision to live near such a facility. To the Altfest’s, the solution is simple…move.
why is the Kent Land Trust allowed to build green houses on rt 7 without proper flood zone bases on no screening required by zoning to protect valley and rt 7 corridor