Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Neighbors split as planning commission debates recovery residence; commission moves to study zoning rules

5533582 · August 5, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed recovery residence overseen by the Grace Foundation at 99 Wofford Stowe Road drew dozens of supporters and opponents. The commission heard extended testimony, recorded a motion to deny the permit, and then voted to initiate a county study of how recovery residences should be sited and regulated.

A conditional use request to operate a transitional recovery residence at 99 Wofford Stowe Road prompted an extended and often emotional public hearing before the Stevens County Planning Commission. The applicant’s agent, Katie Wallen of The Grace Foundation, and multiple supporters described the program as transitional housing for women in long-term recovery, with residents required to work, drug-screening protocols, no on-site clinical services, and no signage. Wallen said prospective residents would have completed earlier recovery phases and would use community outpatient supports; she told the commission, “Recovery is not active addiction,” and described the proposed house as a three-bedroom transitional residence. Supporters included former program participants and local nonprofit partners who testified that the program provided accountability, employment pathways and family reunification. Dozens of nearby residents spoke in opposition, citing concerns about driveway capacity, the narrow unpaved road, turnover and uncertainty about who would live at the house. Several neighbors said they had not been notified directly and raised safety and property-value concerns; one neighbor said the area is effectively a cluster of seven homes and argued the lot is too small for the use. During deliberations a motion to deny the conditional-use permit was made and seconded; the transcript records an aye vote called in favor of the motion. Commissioners then discussed broader policy questions about siting and regulation for recovery residences countywide and voted to ask the Board of Commissioners to study zoning guidance for such facilities before further approvals are issued. The transcript shows the planning commission’s action to initiate a study and to forward the matter to the commissioners; the final decision on the specific conditional-use permit will rest with the Board of Commissioners. Discussion versus decision: the record contains extensive public testimony both supporting and opposing the application, staff descriptions of applicable conditional-use criteria and a motion on the permit; commissioners separately approved a motion to undertake a zoning study on recovery residences and to recommend careful county-level guidance.