Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of United Way group-living special use permit at 2143 Sixth Avenue West

The Dickinson Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of special use permit SUP002-2025, a United Way proposal to operate a group-living facility at 2143 Sixth Avenue West, after a public hearing in which residents, service providers and the applicant spoke for nearly two hours.

The commission's recommendation to deny was made on a motion that concluded with a roll-call-style affirmation of denial by a majority of members. Commissioners cited the proposal's proximity to existing residences, schools and parks; public safety concerns raised by residents and outside research presented during public comment; and questions about long-term funding and staffing as reasons for the recommendation.

The facility proposed to house a mix of emergency shelter, transitional housing and treatment-space operated in partnership with the Southwest Multicounty Correctional Community Treatment Center (SWMCCC). Natalie Burczyk, the city planner, read staff conditions attached to the draft special use permit, including required on-site lighting plans, annual compliance audits and a schedule of quarterly updates to the planning commission for at least one year after the permit's final approval. She said staff had received both public support and opposition and recommended approval subject to the listed conditions.

United Way executive director Dakota Gant, who led the applicant presentation and answered questions, told commissioners the project would exclude 'high-risk offenders' and that case managers would screen clients and perform background checks through state law enforcement. Gant said the facility would be a 24/7 operation and that the United Way planned to provide overnight staffing, security personnel if required, transportation for clients and other operational elements. He said some program funding would come from the treatment partner and some from United Way grants.

"There will be no high risk offenders in this facility," Gant said, and added that case management would perform background screening and verification through state resources. He also said, when asked, that the applicant had not been able to provide all commitment letters for funding that had been described in the application packet.

Allison Wanner, clinical director for SWMCCC, stated the treatment operator expects to bill Medicaid and other insurance for clinical services and said the partner organizations have experience billing and, if needed, back-billing up to 90 days to recover payment. Wanner also said the treatment portion is intended to operate as a separately funded program within the same building.

Residents and neighborhood representatives opposed the permit. Bruce Koppinger, president of the North Hills Townhouse Association, told commissioners his group had gathered about 400 petition signatures opposing the site and called the proposal incompatible with surrounding family homes. Koppinger raised public-safety and property-value concerns and noted nearby schools and parks.

Other opponents cited a peer-reviewed study introduced by Trevor Ernst of the City of Dickinson that, Ernst said, found emergency winter shelters were associated with increases in local property crimes in the cases studied. Ernst told commissioners the study's results were 'sobering' and urged denial on public-safety grounds. He also disputed several assertions made in the applicant's materials about security and operational controls.

Supporters said the facility would address an existing need. Tracy Tews, an investor in the project, and other speakers including Sarah Moe and representatives from domestic-violence services argued the shelter would provide needed shelter and services for people currently living in encampments and on the streets. Tracy Tews said monitoring and grant requirements provide oversight beyond the special use permit conditions.

Commission discussion touched on multiple themes raised in public comment: the adequacy and reliability of committed funding, whether the facility's security and screening procedures would be effective, the effect of a low-barrier shelter on adjacent residential property and how the planning commission's public-safety obligation should be weighed against the demonstrated community need. Several commissioners expressed concern about the site's immediate proximity to family housing and said that, even if the operation itself were well run, the location was not appropriate.

On a motion recommending denial, the commission recorded a majority vote in favor of denying SUP002-2025 (Decker: Aye; Franchuk: Aye; Bollinger: Aye; Hogan: Nay; Schwab: Aye; Rothstein: Aye; Chair: Aye). The motion passed and the commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission; the applicant may appeal or present at the city commission meeting.

Because the planning commission action was a recommendation, it does not by itself prohibit the applicant from seeking the permit from the City Commission. United Way representatives said they could pursue additional site or operational changes and that they would consider next steps, including possible appeal.

The record of staff conditions read into the record included requirements for lighting plans, annual compliance audits, quarterly status updates for one year, annual renewal appearances before the planning and zoning commission, and potential revocation by the city commission or recommendation for revocation by the planning commission if conditions were violated.

The applicant and many residents acknowledged the community need for shelter and treatment services; disagreement centered on siting and operational certainty, as well as the long-term stability of grant funding. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of SUP002-2025; the matter may next be considered by the City Commission upon appeal or further application.