KENT, Conn.—Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Karen Casey assigned homework to her commissioners last week after finally closing a much-continued hearing on High Watch Recovery Center’s application for modification of its special permit.
In January, High Watch asked for an extension of the public hearing beyond the regulatory timeframe, allowing more comment and information to be presented at the February meeting. It could not be extended again, and the commission now has until April 18 to conclude its deliberations and to act.
Casey asked her members to review the documents presented by High Watch and the commission’s attorney, Michael Zizka, before the March 12 meeting.
High Watch has asked for modification of several conditions imposed in the 2019 special permit that allowed it to expand its facilities and services. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission imposed 34 conditions 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 would be immediately notified if any client were to be absent without leave; dictated 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 8:30 a.m. to 8 p.m., with no emergency admissions.
The center asked for modification of these conditions, a move that met with virulent opposition from neighboring property owners and High Watch withdrew its request for some of the more controversial issues. Gone were the requests for two additional detox beds; for admitting clients under the jurisdiction of the legal system, and removal of the requirement to notifying local officials if a client leaves the campus without authorization.
The revisions did little to satisfy neighbors, however, who argue that High Watch has pushed the envelope repeatedly in recent years, acting first and apologizing later for its actions.
They decry the significant growth of the 90-year-old recovery center over the last few years and worry about its continued encroachment into the Carter Road residential community. “Kent is not that big, but what they do is big,” said Karen Altfest, a neighboring property owner for 30 years. “I find High Watch to be disingenuous and not a good neighbor. [CEO] Andrew Roberts is much like any corporate executive. [The campus] looks like Disney World on Carter Road.”
Annette M. Koberlein, who lives near the facility at 160 Carter Road, just over the Kent town line in Warren, also opposed any modification of the conditions, saying she sees no benefit for the town. She argued that people on the street, who live about six miles from the town’s center, never intended live next to such a large facility.
“The neighborhood has changed a great deal,” she said. “We want peace and quiet, the town wants stability and High Watch wants higher recovery targets. They want to grow, to be recognized by their peers, but it has reached a tipping point. We’ve seen their ambitions … ”
She concluded that it is “very important that we stand up as a town and say extremely clearly, ‘No more growth on Carter Road.’”
Ellen Altfest argued that, as an artist, her work depends on the tranquility of Carter Road. “I’m here to protect my working environment,” she said. “The commission relied on their representations in approving the previous conditions—this application loosens those conditions. Each change increases the intensity of use.”
Another neighbor, Jeremiah O’Brien, complained about clear cutting of property above Kent Falls and asserted that runoff and erosion has increased since then. High Watch did, indeed, cut the trees without permits from the Wetlands Commission and the facility received an after-the-fact permit.
“We’ve seen it all and heard it all,” said O’Brien. “If you give them an inch, they take a mile. It’s time to stop it.”
Attorney Zizka wrote lengthy letters to the commission about the proposed modifications and cautioned that enforceability must be flexible. “You can approve as much as you think should be approved and deny what think should be denied,” he said. “You can impose conditions and limitations. You are under no legal obligation to change.”
He added, however, that some of the proposed changes “would be sensible” if they are superseded by federal law. He explained that nonconforming uses can “intensify but not expand—and sometimes it is difficult to draw a line.”
“There is no way to ever actually pin down every aspect of a regulation so that it is absolutely specific,” he cautioned. “There is always some ambiguity. The commission has to be the one to determine what it meant by the conditions. If it’s clear, like no more than ‘x’ number of beds, that’s almost a clear-cut no [that more beds can be added].”
He noted that the conditions that have been withdrawn from the request were the most clear-cut expansions.
“What you have left are conditions that need more clarification. I think you can go as far as clarifying what was meant but not expand. Drawing the line is not going to be easy.”
“High Watch asked for an extension of the public hearing beyond the regulatory timeframe”
No it didn’t. The extension was forced by neighbors who felt the revised application Roberts snuck in at the final hour was suspect. Roberts resigned to the extension by saying he can wait more because High Watch has been around since 1939.
“Casey asked her members to review the documents presented by High Watch”
No she didn’t. High Watch has submitted no new documents to review; the neighbors did. They outed High Watch with a 66 page report documenting the organization’s history regulatory non-compliance. It infuriated Roberts, who then went on to out himself with more violations in a hasty rebuttal.
High Watch was called out several times by neighbors and a commissioner for actively violating their zoning permit. This is newsworthy.
All this is public record, easily accessed.
how do you know who sent in all that document against High Watch. your just guessing. lots of people don’t like them.