New Berlin board finds appellant aggrieved, sends Milwaukee Rescue Mission appeal to full hearing

The City of New Berlin Board of Appeals voted 3–1 on April 28 to find that New Berlin Citizens United has legal standing to appeal the Plan Commission’s Dec. 8 approval of the Milwaukee Rescue Mission’s proposed 120‑bed New Journey residential recovery facility, sending the matter to a hearing on the merits.

The vote followed hours of testimony limited to whether the appellant is an "aggrieved" party with a concrete, particularized interest. Neighbors and expert witnesses for the appellant described proximity, safety concerns and potential property‑value effects; representatives of the Milwaukee Rescue Mission and a contracted city assessor testified that the program is structured and that a measurable tax or valuation impact is unlikely.

Appellant witnesses testified about community notice and local impacts. Tyler Brenner, a nearby resident, said he first learned of the proposal in late December and cited open‑records data he said showed hundreds of emergency calls tied to the Rescue Mission campus; he described the prospect of a 120‑bed facility within about a half mile of his home as "terrifying." Janice Shoman, a former Milwaukee Police Department sergeant, detailed historic downtown disorderly‑conduct and drug‑related calls she associated with the Rescue Mission campus and said calls for service historically rose in warm months.

Milwaukee Rescue Mission witnesses disputed that the New Journey program generates frequent law‑enforcement incidents. Patrick Vanderberg, identified as a Rescue Mission representative, described New Journey as a structured, six‑month residential addiction‑recovery program with candidacy screening, random drug testing and 24/7 staffing; he said MRM has discussed a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes (PILOT) arrangement if the property later seeks tax‑exempt status. Jeremy Moore, director of safety and security for the mission, summarized internal incident logs and told the board that New Journey recorded eight service calls in 2025 (seven medical, one involving law enforcement), saying police involvement specific to New Journey is rare.

Sam Monroe, a contracted assessor who testified for the city, said the project as presented is an inpatient recovery facility rather than a low‑staff recovery residence studied in other research and that, based on the information provided, he would not anticipate a measurable increase in criminal activity or an immediate impact on assessed values. Real‑estate witness Scott Klaas testified that disclosure of a nearby recovery facility could influence buyer perception and selling strategy and that proximity and perceived safety affect market demand, but he also acknowledged that market indicators can be mixed prior to project approval or construction.

After taking evidence and hearing counsel argue over the record’s completeness, the board directed its attorney to prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law and to reconvene to consider a written decision. The chair said counsel and the parties should work to assemble the planning‑commission record and any disputed documents before the next hearing. The board’s standing vote was taken by roll call and the motion passed by a 3–1 vote.

The board’s decision on standing is procedural: it permits the appellant to pursue a full hearing on the merits of the appeal. The substantive question — whether the Plan Commission’s approval should be upheld or overturned — remains for the future hearing.

The Board of Appeals adjourned after completing procedural business; the parties were instructed to coordinate on records and a schedule for the next session.