101 Oakwood Road Appeal PacketHOPKINS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
5:30 pm
THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
UNTIL THE START OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. NEW BUSINESS
1. Appeal Hearing of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 101 Oakwood Road; Imihy Bean
III. ADJOURN
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76\841499.v2-11/27/22
December 6, 2022 Council Report 2022-112
APPEAL HEARING OF THE REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMODATION FOR
101 OAKWOOD ROAD
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends that the Council hear the appeal made by the applicant, Kevin Stanton, and
review the attached report and supplemental items and made a determination in this case. Once the
hearing is complete, Staff requests that the City Council direct staff to draft a resolution or
resolutions so that the City Council’s decision will be in writing.
Overview:
On June 10, 2022, the applicant, Mr. Kevin Stanton submitted a request for a reasonable
accommodation to allow for nine (9) occupants who are disabled due to alcoholism to live at 101
Oakwood Road. Mr. Stanton currently operates the home at this address as a sober living facility
which is licensed by the City as a rental home for four (4) residents. The applicant asserts that the
addition of more occupants provides more support to those living within the home. The applicant
also notes that increased income to the property is needed to maintain the viability of the property
therefore contributing to the need for the accommodation.
Per the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance, neighbors within 500 feet of the property
were notified of Mr. Stanton’s request to solicit any public comments on June 17, 2022. Staff
revied over 100 comments related to this matter. The vast majority of the comments were opposed
to the accommodation request and are included as an attachment. Staff excluded as discriminatory
comments that associated individuals with alcoholism, because of their alcoholism, with increases
in crime, a higher likelihood that children would be in danger, or any other comment that related
those who meet the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism, the disability, with a negative
impact on the community. Discriminatory comments were not used as part of this determination.
After review of the application and the attached comments Staff determined that the request was
denied for the reasons outlined in detail in the letter of denial sent to the applicant on October 7,
2022, and attached here for your review. Ultimately the determination of denial was made because
the Applicant failed to show that the request was reasonable, including because there were no
standards or screening criteria ensuring that the residents are disabled, does not provide that
increasing the number of residents is financially or therapeutically necessary, and the city finds
that the requested accommodation is incompatible with the nature of the surrounding
neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant’s established and documented patterns of past
behavior, as noted in the decision, indicates that granting the accommodation would not be in the
public’s best interest, including neighbors and residents of the sober home.
Relying on the Applicant’s past behavior as an indicator for future actions was reinforced after the
decision was issued. The Applicant called the Accommodation Specialist three separate times on
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76\841499.v2-11/27/22
October 18, 2022, each time yelling and screaming at the Accommodation Specialist. During the
phone calls, the Applicant tried to convince the Accommodation Specialist that his LLC, ninety n
ninety was the applicant, not him (the application is clearly from Kevin Stanton) and stated that he
was going to reapply with “someone else” and that he was going to “fire Kevin Stanton” and apply
again. This small interaction is indicative of Stanton’s lack of honesty (stating that he would simply
apply using a different applicant to avoid his past actions coming into play), inability to adhere to
legal requirements (his attempt to convince the Accommodation specialist that the applicant should
be the LLC instead of himself), as well as lack of self-control (because he called three times, each
time screaming at the Accommodation Specialist).
The applicant, Mr. Stanton, has requested an appeal of this decision on November 7, 2022, which
is permitted within the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance. In preparation for his appeal,
he has submitted additional information which is attached to this report.
At this time, the City Council must review the attached information and make a determination in
this matter. Tonight, the Council will hear from Mr. Stanton and his representative in the matter
and will have the opportunity to has any questions to the applicant or the City’s attorney.
Supporting Information:
• Application for Reasonable Accommodation for 101 Oakwood Road
• Supplemental Materials Provided by the Applicant of 101 Oakwood Road
• Public Comments Submitted During the Comment Period
• Findings and Denial of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 101 Oakwood
Road
• Applicant Additional Information for Appeal
• City Response to Appeal Information
________________________________________
PeggySue Imihy Bean, AICP
Management Analyst
1
VIA EMAIL
October 5, 2022
PeggySue Imihy Bean
Management Analyst, Racial Equity Coordinator
1010 1st St. S.
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Ninety n ninety Sober Home Application
Ms. Imihy,
Thank you for your recent email to my client Kevin Stanton, owner Ninety n ninety LLC
(“the Applicant”) regarding his application for a sober home at 101 Oakwood Road, Hopkins, MN
55343 (“the Property”). In the email, you indicate that the City is “inclined to deny the request”
for various reasons and request additional information to supplement the record. Specifically, you
state that the application does not:
1. Provide that each individual living at the property meets the definition of being
“disabled” or “handicapped” under the ADA and FHA.
2. Support the requirement that allowing nine individuals is financially necessary to allow
individuals with alcoholism to take advantage of the stated benefits of living at the
property.
3. Adequately explain why expanding the number of individuals to nine is therapeutically
necessary to achieve the stated benefits of living at the property.
4. Demonstrate, besides stating there is garage parking and room for three vehicles in the
driveway, where vehicles for up to nine individuals would park and have egress from
the parking locations to the street.
Please find additional supplementary information below.
1. The Residents of the home qualify as “disabled.”
As you may know, sober houses are afforded protection under U.S. federal law. Denial of
reasonable accommodation may result in a federal lawsuit and a judgment similar to the one
2
entered in Jeffrey O., et al., v. City of Boca Raton, 511 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007), where
the Federal District Court not only struck down similar limitations on sober living but ordered the
city to pay $2,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. Recently this issue has also been successfully litigated
in favor of the challenged sober houses in Minnesota, California (see Pac. Shores Properties, LLC
v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2013)), and Colorado (see St. Paul Sober
Living, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, No. 11-CV-00303-RBJ-MEH (D. Colo.)).
Under federal law, 42 USC Section 3602(h), a handicap is defined as:
- An impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities;
- A record of having such an impairment; or
- Being regarded as having such an impairment.
The initial application provided to the City included letters attesting that the residents of
the Property are recovering alcoholics and addicts who, but for the atmosphere provided at the
home, would likely be living “on the street.” Some residents have been to multiple treatments, lost
their families and homes, and cannot live independently. The Applicant provided letters from three
individuals in the home but is happy to have the City meet with the other residents to discuss their
history of addiction and the consequences that their addiction has had on their lives. The disability
that addicts suffer is the risk of relapse and subsequent limitations that this risk places on their
lives.
The requirement to show “substantially limited” major life activities is “not meant to be a
demanding standard.” Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Oehmke
v. Medtronic, Inc., 844 F.3d 748, 756 (8th Cir. 2016)). It is enough to show that the residents have
a “record of impairment.” The letters provided by the Applicant clearly meet this threshold.
It is common for treatment centers to recommend that individuals released from treatment
live in a sober home as part of the “continuum of care.” Because they are in early recovery, the
Property’s residents are at high risk of relapse and need constant vigilance and a structured
program. Living in sober housing is one proven method to increase their chances of staying sober.
Their choice to live in sober housing demonstrates their limited ability to live independently
without relapsing. The substantial limitation is an inability to live independently without an
increased risk of relapse. See Human Res. Research & Mgmt. Group v. County of Suffolk, 687
F.Supp.2d 237, 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (residents of a sober home “need to live in a supportive
environment…[to] avoid a relapse for long enough to develop comfortable sobriety.”).
The law in this area is clear and longstanding. The residents of sober houses are considered
“handicapped” under the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. 3600 et seq.
Recovering addicts and alcoholics are specifically included within the definition of “handicapped
individual.” See 42 U.S.C. 3602(h) and 24 C.F.R. 100.201(a) (2). See also City of Edmonds v.
Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). The Fair Housing Act was amended to include
handicapped individuals within its parameters, and to guarantee the ability of these individuals to
live in the residence of their choice within the community. See Oxford House-Evergreen v. City
of Plainfield,769 F. Supp. 1329 (D.N.J. 1991) (noting that residents of an Oxford House in
Plainfield, New Jersey “are part of a nationally recognized program which, through peer pressure
and strict conditions of abstinence, successfully maintains freedom from addiction and improves
the lives and opportunities of its participants.”) See also Oxford House, Inc. v. Twp. of Cherry
3
Hill, 799 F. Supp. 450, 456 (D.N.J. 1992) (“There is a shortage of adequate housing in New Jersey
for recovering substance abusers and alcoholics. Closing down the Oxford House at 911 South
Kings Highway and forcing the residents to leave would be extremely detrimental to their recovery
and would substantially increase the likelihood of relapse.”). As recovering alcoholics and addicts
who cannot presently live independently or with their natural families, plaintiffs are handicapped
individuals within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. City of Plainfield, 769 F. Supp. at 1342.1
2. The Property is operating at a loss, and additional residents are financially necessary.
Although not dispositive, financial necessity has been held by courts to be a valid basis
supporting a request for reasonable accommodation. See. King’s Ranch of Jonesboro, Inc. v. City
of Jonesboro, Ark.,No.3:10CV00096, 2011 WL 1544697 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2011).
Father Jack Yali (PPM) is the house manager living at the Property and provides support
and guidance to the residents. He is a Catholic priest with over 40 years of sobriety, and he provides
spiritual direction and weekly meetings to help residents develop and maintain a recovery growth
plan. We would be happy to arrange for the City to meet with him to discuss the Property, the
therapeutic environment, and the need for additional residents.
With the Property currently restricted to 4 residents, the Applicant is operating at a loss of
approximately $1,200.00 per month after mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, and other expenses.
There is no reserve for improvements to the Property. Unless the accommodation is granted, the
Property will most likely not be able to continue operating as a sober home. Although the Applicant
provides sober housing in part due to his commitment to assisting other addicts and alcoholics, the
Property is a business. Below are the current monthly operating expenses and income from the
Property:
- Loan payments: -$2175.00
- Taxes: -$602.00
- Insurance: -$280.00
- S&W&Garbage: -$158.00
- Gas and electric: -$400.00
- Internet: -$40.00
- Reserves: -$300.00
- Total expenses: -$3855.00
- Rent - 4 x 650: +$2600.00
- Net loss: $1255.00
3. Studies have demonstrated the benefits of greater occupancy in Recovery Homes.
In the initial application the Applicant provided a study from 2008 demonstrating that larger
house size “predicted less criminal and aggressive behavior” and that the residents of larger houses
1 With respect to individuals with disabilities, violation of the Fair Housing Act may be shown by either intentional
discrimination, discriminatory effect, or a failure to reasonably accommodate. Oxford House-Evergreen v. City
of Plainfield at 1343; Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 843 F. Supp. 1556 (E.D. Mo. 1994); Carson v.
Rochester Hous. Auth., 748 F.Supp 1002, 1007 (W.D.N.Y. 1990).
4
had, on average, 81 additional cumulative days of sobriety – a 30% increase in the length of
sobriety. The Applicant does not have the resources to pay for expert analyses but has attached a
report about a separate sober home that sheds light on some of the benefits of a larger community
in recovery housing.
4. The Property would not have parking for nine vehicles.
The Applicant did not indicate that all nine residents at the Property would have vehicles.
In fact, a substantial number of the residents of sober homes do not drive – a substantial limitation
on their lives caused by their addiction. The Applicant has no plans to accommodate more than
five vehicles at the Property at any given time and is happy to provide any assurance needed by
the City that the Property will have no more than that number of vehicles. The garage and driveway
are more than adequate for five vehicles.
Finally, the City requested information related to Ninety n ninety LLC status. The
Applicant has renewed the LLC with the Minnesota Secretary of State. Ninety n ninety LLC has
been reinstated and is no longer administratively terminated.
We are happy to arrange an opportunity for the members of the City Council to tour the
home, meet the manager and residents, and see that the requested accommodation is reasonable
and necessary for the Applicant to continue providing a valuable resource to the Hopkins
community.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Fabian Hoffner
The Hoffner Firm, Ltd.
(612) 206-3777
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
)
One Love Housing, LLC, )
Timothy McNellis, and )
Brandon Severson )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.:19-cv-1252 (JRT/DTS)
)
vs. )
)
City of Anoka, Minnesota ) EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN CURTISS
)
Defendant, )
)
)
I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs One Love Housing, LLC and Timothy
McNellis to conduct an independent analysis of One Love Housing, LLC’s sober home in Anoka,
Minnesota, the need for sober living in the Anoka County, Minnesota area, the economics and the
therapeutic benefits of sober homes when they have the optimal number of residents between 7 and
15.
I. OPINIONS TO BE EXPRESSED AND THE BASIS AND REASONS FOR THEM
1. There is a need for sober homes in the Anoka County area.
Over 2.4 million people in the United States participate in alcohol or other drug treatment programs
each year (SAMHSA 2018). Outcome studies show that the longer an individual remains in a
treatment or a recovery environment, the greater are his or her chances of sustaining long-term
recovery. However, people in early recovery are often discharged from programs only to return to
the pretreatment environment where alcohol or other drug use triggers are immediately and
repeatedly experienced. For many, recovery residences or sober homes provide a vital bridge from
in-patient or institutional treatment to recovery communities and independent living. In addition,
recovery residences assist people in later stages of recovery by providing a safe, healthy place to
live that focuses or re-focuses them on their recovery.
2019 Statistics on alcohol and drug addiction in the United States from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
• 21.6 million people aged 12 or older experienced a substance use disorder in 2019,
• 71.1 percent (or 14.5 million people) experienced an alcohol use disorder,
• 40.7 percent (or 8.3 million people) had a past year illicit drug use disorder, and
• 11.8 percent (or 2.4 million people) had both an alcohol use disorder and an illicit drug use
disorder in the past year.
2
• Drug abuse and addiction cost American society more than $740 billion annually in lost
workplace productivity, healthcare expenses, and crime-related costs.
• Among the 21.6 million people aged 12 or older in 2019 who needed substance use
treatment in the past year, only 12.2 percent (or 2.6 million people) received substance use
treatment at a specialty facility in the past year. This percentage in 2019 was similar to the
percentages in 2015 to 2018.
• You can also assume that nearly 50% of all persons in Anoka County know someone
intimately who suffers from substance use disorder. (Each addict has an average of six
intimate family and friends in their immediate circle.)
As you can see from the above statistics, with only 12% of the people receiving treatment who need
it, there is a significant unmet need. These same numbers can be extrapolated to the State and
County levels as well. One can assume that approximately 8-10% of the adult population in Anoka
County will struggle with a substance use disorder. And, for those that do, only 10-12% will receive
the help they need. Anoka County, like most places in the United States, have seen a dramatic
increase in Opioid overdose deaths over the past several years.
Every community needs access to the full continuum of treatment/recovery services. The
continuum of care includes detox centers, primary inpatient and outpatient services, extended care
and clinical halfway house programs and long-term sober living reside nces. Sober homes are a vital
part of the treatment and recovery continuum. It is where people put into practice what they have
learned in their treatment experience. To my knowledge, there are only three independent sober
homes in the City of Anoka.
2. City Council Members and neighbors expressed animosity to locating a sober home
at 328 Washington Street, in Anoka, MN.
The Anoka elected officials and the public shared their open animosity to having a sober home located
at 328 Washing Street from the beginning of the process. For example, Council Member Freeburg
commented:
This is an absolute scam, a cash cow, taking advantage of (inaudible) to make money.
I don’t know. I don’t know these places. (Inaudible.) Is it to help people or –
(Inaudible.) I sold a house to a single lady across the street from this place about six
or eight months ago. Now seven unemployed drunks are going to be living across the
street from her. And where’s her rights come into play?. . . And how many of these
sober homes does Anoka have to take? There’s another big house two houses down
from this one. Can they do one there?
Transcript of Special Work Session of Anoka City Council Held on May 7, 2018 at p. 13:9 – 23.
Mayor Rice stated: “I don’t know how it ’s more enjo yable to have seven in the house than it is to
have four.” Id. at p. 15:5 – 7. Council Member Weaver stated: “So you ’ve been working with an
attorney who is bringing this wonderful use to our community. Are they planning on loading up
Anoka all over town.” Id. at p. 18:25 – 19:3.
Council Members Wesp and Weaver asked:
3
COUNCIL MEMBER WESP: Then secondly, what about Fred Moore being so close?
Does that have any impact? Can you have a so-called sober house that – I think the
proximity is very close to the school.
COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER: Yeah. You – you got close to an elementary school
too, Lincoln, or the Renaissance school. Montessori school, also.
Id. at p. 23:10 – 18. Council Member Freeburg addressed the City Attorney:
COUNCIL MEMBER FREEBURG: To wrap this up, if we decide not to allow or
approve this and go to court, will we lose?
CITY ATTORNEY BAUMBARTNER: In my opinion, yes. Let me – just two things
that really kind of sum this up, and I know this information was provided to you. . . .
If a locality refuses to waive an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated persons
who may live in a single-family home, where such a waiver may be necessary for
person with disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, the
locality violates the act unless the locality can prove that the waiver would impose an
undue financial and administrative burden on the local government or fundamentally
alter the essential nature of the locality zoning scheme. . . . The difficulty in fighting
against this or opposing this position, is we’re not just opposing a group home. We ’re
now challenging the Fair Housing Act, which becomes not only difficult, number one,
because you ’re dealing with disabilities, but, number two, the penalties that could be
associated in the financial fines or penalties that may be associated with violating
federal law could be even more significant.
COUNCIL MEMBER FREBURG: Build the wall.
Id. at pp. 25:11 – 27:3. Council Members went on:
COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER: We need to get proactive on that.
MAYOR RICE: Well . . .
COUNCIL MEMBER FREEBURG: I’m in favor of playing hard ball.
COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER: No question, hardball.
Id. at pp. 29:24 – 30:5. Later, Council Member Freeburg summed up his position on granting a
reasonable accommodation: “We ’ll make it tough.” Id. at p. 36:14 – 15.
On July 16, 2018, at a meeting of the City Council, the first reading of the text amendments
to establish an application process for reasonable accommodations for sober homes was on the
agenda. Council Member Weaver began: “Reasonable accommodations, Federal Fair Housing Act
is government overreach at its finest, but with that said – am I right, counselor?” Transcript of
Meeting of the Anoka City Council Held On Monday, July 16, 2018, p. 7:3 – 6. Council Members
Weaver and Freeburg expressed their further concerns:
COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER: Sure. What other possibilities of other requests
are coming our way? I’d be really interested in that because I’d like to be able to get
out ahead of this and get this – our arms around what ’s coming to fall within our
ordinance for the separation policy. Otherwise, you could fill up neighborhoods full
of different request and everyone would have to have a quarter mile separation, so I –
4
I’m bothered by the possibilities of what could be coming down the road, getting into
some of these neighborhoods that aren’t going to tolerate it. I don’t believe they will.
Mark, yo u’re a real estate guy.
COUNCIL MEMBER FREEBERG: No. Yeah, this is in my neighborhood and it
seems like – why – what is the benefits of packing seven guys into a house versus
packing four guys into a house? Well, it ’s money, it ’s more money for the owner, so
who is pushing this at the state level, I mean, to do this? I think it ’s more beneficial
to have four people, four – even to me sounds like trouble on the rise. You know. And
– but for the owner, it ’s a lot of money. And they say follow the money.
CITY ATTORNEY: A couple of things. . . . Now, there’s also studies out there that
say or suggest that individuals recovering from addiction are better together in a group
setting than they are on their own, but what number is the magic number? And – and
we can’t make that determination because somebody can come and say well, this
professional says it ’s this number or seven is better than four because of this.
Id. at , pp. 9:7 – 12:24. Mayor Rice also questioned the necessity of having more than fo ur residents
in a sober home:
MAYOR RICE: I think that the key to this is that word “necessary” and I have a hard
time getting my head around the idea that anyone could argue that it ’s necessary for
someone to have more than four people in a home to enjoy that as a home, and so –
COUNCIL MEMBER FREEBERG: You’d think it would be going the opposite way,
going from seven to four and not four to seven.
MAYOR RICE: Right. And I – I think Council Member ’s Weaver’s original remark
that while we try to solve so me problem it becomes government reaching too far and
actually creating a problem for the city, for a neighborhood. . . . So it is puzzling to me
that while you have developmentally-disabled and mentally ill people who are limited
to four per residence, yet for some reason substance abuse is in a separate category
and allowed to have a larger group of unrelated people. So I would suspect that there
would be some challenges to this.
Id. at pp. 25:17 – 26:19.
Council Member Weaver gave this instruction to the City Attorney:
I hope staff runs through every scenario possible which could happen with this
“necessity” as you say, Attorney Baumgartner, because I think our number one job as
council people is to protect our neighborhoods, and it ’s up to us to protect the
neighborhoods and ask every questions, every -- dot every I and cross every T as
many times as possible to push it right to the edge and maybe hang over a little bit to
protect those neighborhoods, and we have to do it. I just – I don’t want to tear our
community apart because some fancy attorney found a way to interpret the Fair
Housing Act in a new way that is a moneymaker. That ’s what it is.
Id. at p. 36:3 – 19.
On August 7, 2018, the Anoka City Council approved an ordinance establishing an application
process for reasonable accommodation requests for sober houses. On September 27, 2018, One Love
5
Housing submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42
U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) that the City treat the residents as a family by waiving the number of unrelated
persons that can reside together as a family, and treat the use of the House as a single-family use.
On November 19, 2018, the Anoka City Council held a meeting to address the reasonable
accommodation application for the House. At the meeting, City Attorney Baumgartner noted that
during prior discussions, the Mayor and certain Council Members had questioned the necessity of
going from four to seven residents in the House and he stated: “There is a somewhat subjective, if
you will, interpretation of seven is better than four. While if seven is better than four, is ten better
than seven. Is 12 – I guess I don’t know the answer to that, but this is one of the criteria that the
council can consider. . .” Transcript of Meeting of Anoka City Council held on November 19, 2018,
pp. 19:22 – 20:2. Mayor Rice then asked residents for their opinions as to the necessity of having
more than four residents. See id. at p. 21:13 – 18. Council Member Freeburg stated:
That would be hard – that ’s got to be hard to prove that it ’s more beneficial to
have seven in a house and very crowded, and that ’s a benefit to having less people,
like four, which give you a little more room to work with and a little more privacy. I
don’t understand the cramping of people into a small house that ’s going to make them
well quicker. It doesn’t work for me.
Id. at pp. 32:24 – 33:12.
Council Member Freeburg stated:
I don’t think somebody should buy a property for a certain use and then decide after
they’ve purchased it that they want to rezone because it ’s going to work better. They
should have got that figured out up front before they bought the property, and that ’s
what happened here. They bought the property and four was allowed and now they’ve
come to the – to their senses that seven is going to be better. . . And so my – my
concern is more for the people who live here and have homes and protecting their
home and protecting their values. So some day they need to sell; they don’t have
issues or forced to sell because they’re uncomfortable. So they’re my priority in a case
like this. And that ’s why I’m not in favor of changing this, making that exception for
this property. I would like to make the motion that we do not have a second reading.
Id. at pp. 44:8 – 45:8.
On December 4, 2018, the City sent counsel for One Love Housing a letter and a copy of the
Resolution adopted at the December 3, 2018 City Council Meeting denying One Love Housing ’s
request for a reasonable accommodation. The resolution did not list any factual findings or provide
any indication that the City considered the reasonableness of One Love Housing ’s request or any
factors beyond a conclusion that an increase in occupancy was not necessary.
The comments cited above and in the public hearings and in the depositions by the members of
the City Council and the public are not uncommon. In fact, the initial comments of most city
officials and the general public throughout the country regarding sober homes tends to be quite
negative. But I can tell you from my forty plus years of experience in the addiction treatment and
sober living field that the concerns highlighted in the statements above never play out in reality.
Sober homes have quietly existed in the Twin Cities since the 1950’s. To my knowledge, there is no
evidence that shows that sober houses lower surrounding property values, contribute to higher crime
6
rates or uses more community resources. The police and the fire marshals will likely tell you, these
are NOT the properties we have to worry about. They are safe, sober, clean and well-mannered
properties. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to the addiction recovery field can tell you that
living in a sober house significantly enhances long -term recovery outcomes. People who live in
sober housing are sober, working, voting, tax paying members of our society. They represent a
community-based, affordable and highly effective solution to the monumental problem the City of
Anoka faces with the problem of alcohol and drug dependency. Sober home operators are
dedicated to ensuring, both to the residents living in their houses, and to the communities
surrounding them, that the people living in these homes are sober, working and involved citizens.
Sober people, like most of us, choose to live in safe residential areas, close to bus-lines, close to
coffee houses, close to AA meetings and easy access to employment opportunities. Generally,
many people living in sober houses don’t have cars so they choose to live within safe walking
distance of the vital resources they need to recover.
When newly sober individuals are faced with discrimination, based on stereotyping and a NIMBY
(not in my backyard) attitude, this can have a negative impact on the residents. It makes it difficult
to re-engage in society when the community around you don’t want you there.
3. The therapeutic benefit of sober home living cannot be achieved at One Love
Housing’s sober home in Anoka if it is limited to four residents.
One of the essential factors in promoting recovery is the creation, a “caring community” or
“therapeutic milieu”. At Hazelden, with over 80 years experience in the addiction treatment field, it
was believed that the ideal size of a well functioning treatment unit was 20 patients, with a
combination of multiple bed rooms (approximately 2-4 patients per bedroom) and private rooms.
Every treatment unit they built on their Center City campus had 20-beds.
As the founder and president of The Retreat, a non-profit addiction recovery program based in
Wayzata Minnesota, we have operated sober homes on Summit Avenue, in the Crocus Hill
neighborhood of St. Paul for over 20 years without incident. We have six homes ranging in size
from twelve to fifteen residents. In our experience we have found that 12-15 residents is the ideal
number to promote a supportive caring community in which to recover.
As the co-founder and board member of The Minnesota Association of Some Homes (MASH), a
certifying body in the State of Minnesota, founded in 2007 representing approximately 1,756 beds
in 63 facilities across the state can attest that most, if not all of our member houses are in that six to
fifteen residents range with an average beds per house of 10. It seems all our members feel that this
is the optimal size to create both the therapeutic milieu and business model for a fully functioning
and affordable sober-living environment.
And finally, as the former President of the Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of
North America (AHHAP) founded in St Paul Minnesota in 1966, an advocacy organization for
halfway house and recovery home operators that represented thousands of beds throughout the
United States for over 40 years, also found that most of our members homes were in that six to
fifteen bed range.
The efficacy of group therapy has been understood for more than 60 years, as has the understanding
7
that such groups function best with between 7 - 15 participants. Dr. Irvin Yalom, widely known as
the foremost authority on group therapy and the author of The Theory and Practice of Group
Psychotherapy states the ideal size for a therapeutic group setting is 7-8 members.
Studies conducted on behalf of Oxford House have shown that the optimal size house provides
room for 8 to 12 residents, with most bedrooms accommodating two individuals to help them avoid
the isolation that can lead to relapse and provide accountability.
If the size of the community is too small there is not the sense of safety in numbers that a larger
group can provide. A house with only four residents would be negatively affected by the struggles
of any one of the other residents, whereas a larger group can remain focused on recovery while one,
or even two, of their housemates may be struggling with those first few critical steps needed to
recover. Addiction is a disease of isolation and a critical component of recovery is connection. And
there must be enough people in the home so that regardless of any individual’s schedule residents
can easily find others available to connect with.
In my opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty, having a house with just four residents would
not provide the proper therapeutic environment for recovery. In this house having seven
residents is both optimal and necessary.
4. Economically, One Love Housing must have more than four residents in order to
maintain the sober home in Anoka.
Affordable sober housing options are essential for helping newly sober individuals get back on their
feet. The One Love Housing home in Anoka is an affordable sober house. At $550 per month most
residents are working full time and paying their own fees or may have temporary assistance from
funding organizations or other programs. To limit the number of participants to four not only as
stated earlier erodes the therapeutic efficacy of the group, it also would negatively impact the
financial viability. One Love Housing ’s gross income will generally be under $3,300 per month
with census fluctuation and open bed days contributing to possibly less.
To maintain a safe and supportive atmosphere there must be funds available to employ a house
manager, provide necessary supplies, respond to repairs and maintenance needs in a timely manner
etc. Sober homes are not different from any large family. The cost of operating any large household
can be quite expensive.
After the following estimated expenses provided by Crystal Hill: mortgage payment of $1,300/mo,
taxes $2,632/annually or $219/mo, fuel and utilities $266/mo and cable $114/mo, phone service
$30/mo, garbage and recycling $45/mo, insurance $ 2,600/annually or $217/mo, UA kits $125/mo,
and maintenance $2,600/annually or $217/mo, you can see that the operation margin for this house,
as it is for most sober homes, is quite slim. Therefore, the number of beds is obviously crucial to the
income and thus the operation of the house.
5. One Love Housing’s Anoka sober home is well run and succeeding in providing
therapeutic benefits to its residents.
Due to precautions related to COVID-19, I conducted a virtual visit of the One Love Housing sober
home at 328 Washington Street, Anoka, MN, on November 29, 2020 and also inspected the exterior
8
of the house and walked the neighborhood on November 28th. I met and spoke with many of the
house residents and the live-in house manager Tim McNellis.
I also reviewed their MASH house inspection report conducted on 8/11/19 and spoke directly with
the MASH house surveyor Sol Ryan who personally inspected the property. The MASH inspection
verified that this house met all of MASH’s health and life safety, management and ethical standards.
328 Washington is a single family home with four bedrooms and two full baths in a quiet residential
neighborhood that boarders a commercial area of Anoka. There is a coffee house and restaurants
within walking distance of the house and a middle school on the other side of the round-a-bout.
There is more than adequate off-street parking. The bedrooms are of adequate size to comfortably
accommodate two residents each (using twin size beds). The living room, dining area and kitchen
are certainly adequate to serve all seven occupants. The patio in the back of the house is a
convenient area for residents to gather outside in a location less visible to the neighbors in the front
of the house.
My professional assessment is that the house at 328 Washington Street is a stable, viable, and well-
run sober living home. They have best practices in place and have a solid informed live-in manager.
The group clearly understands and takes full advantage of the group support concept and
encourages the therapeutic atmosphere. There is a clear understanding of rules and expectations for
each resident. They are organized as a mutually-managed, democratically-operated sober living
environment and all residents enjoy full use of the entire home and its amenities. The home was
clean, organized and has no visible usage differences than any other single-family home. The
residents in this house are all working full time in the community or working part-time and
participating in day treatment. There is very little turnover in this house. Two of the men have been
living there for more than two years and one for over 3 years. The residents reported to me that they
have had very little contact with the surrounding neighbors and feel safe and comfortable living in
the community.
I think it’s important to note that this sober home has been in operation at this site for 3 1/2
years without incident. In all that time there has been only one police/EMT call to that
property (according to the house manager), and that was due to the live-in house manager
having a heart attack.
One Love incorporates rules that are specific to sober living and its residents:
• zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol;
• zero tolerance rules also extends to: violence, threats of violence, fighting, harassment, theft, sex
on the premises and unexcused absence or violation of curfews;
• each resident is required to be financially self-supporting, paying their own rent, and purchasing
their own food; and
• residents are required to work, actively seek employment, participate in day treatment, or be a
student enrolled in an accredited academic or trade school.
• Each resident is required to attend a minimum of 3 outside AA or NA meetings per week.
All residents are screened prior to admission to the house. They all must be motivated for recovery,
willing to remain abstinent from all mood altering chemicals, including alcohol and be willing to
9
follow all house expectations. No one is admitted to the house who has a history of violent or sexual
crimes.
Providing the time, structure and support in a dignified home-like setting to allow individuals to live
their recovery principles in the real world is the essence of what a sober house is all about. In my
opinion, the house at 328 Washington Street provides such an opportunity. It is a well maintained
house, in a quiet neighborhood on the edge of a commercial district and provides the structure and
accountability necessary to support long -term productive recovery. The residents, as a group, are
able to easily access local commercial necessities like grocery stores, restaurants, coffee houses and
twelve step meetings, etc. They are able to live together as a family.
The residents of this sober home have all completed a chemical dependency treatment program
prior to admission and therefore fit the diagnosis of alcoholism and/or drug addiction as defined by
the DSM-4 and the criteria of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
DSM –IV
• Definition: Chemical Dependence
1. Presence of tolerance
2. Avoidance of withdrawal symptoms
3. Consumption in larger amounts than intended
4. Persistent use despite negative consequences
1. Social
2. Occupational
3. Psychological
4. Physical
• Definition: Substance Abuse
1. Recurrent use over a 12 month period despite:
1. Physically hazardous situations
2. Legal problems
3. Negative social and interpersonal consequences
• Criteria: DSM-IV Alcohol Abuse (1 or more criteria fo r over 1 year)
1. Role Impairment (e.g. failed work or home obligations)
2. Hazardous use (e.g. Driving, swimming or operating machinery while
intoxicated)
3. Legal problems related to Alcohol use
4. Social or interpersonal problems due to Alcohol
• Criteria: DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence (3 criteria for over 1 year)
1. Tolerance (increased drinking to achieve same effect)
2. Alcohol Withdrawal signs or symptoms
10
3. Drinking more than intended
4. Unsuccessful attempts to cut down on use
5. Excessive time related to Alcohol (obt aining, hangover)
6. Impaired social or work activities due to Alcohol
7. Use despite physical or psychological consequences
The Federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act
apply to:
• an individual who has successfully completed a drug rehabilitation or is
otherwise rehabilitated and is no longer using drugs illegally; and
• an individual who is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no
longer using drugs illegally.
It is a requirement that residents of these homes be recovering alcoholics and addicts. All
residents have had some previous treatment experience and agree to participate in an active
program of recovery during their stay. In addition residency at a sober house also requires
total abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
II. THE FACTS AND DATA CONSIDERED IN FORMING MY OPINIONS
Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendant’s Answer
Virtual site visit to One Love Housing ’s Anoka, Minnesota sober home on November 28 and 29,
2020.
Interviews with Timothy McNellis and Crystal Hill and visits with two current residents
Deposition of Timothy McNellis
Deposition of Crystal Hill
Deposition of the City of Anoka and Douglas Borglund
Deposition of Philip Rice
Deposition of Elizabeth Barnett
Deposition of Mark Freeburg
Deposition of Brian Wesp
Deposition of Jefferson Weaver
Deposition of Clark Palmer
Deposition of Scott Baumgartner
Deposition of Gregory Lee
11
Deposition Exhibits 1 – 88
Oxford House Manual and review of cases settled in Oxford House actions.
Oxford House – The Model, 12th Oxford House World Convention, The Fairmont Hotel, Chicago,
IL, September 2 – 5, 2010.
Jason, L.A., Groh, D.R., Durocher, M., Alvarez, J., Aase, D.M., & Ferrari, J.R. (2008).
COUNTERACTING “NOT IN MY BACKYARD”: THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF GREATER
OCCUPANCY WITHIN MUTUAL-HELP RECOVERY HOMES.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 947-958.
SAMHSA 2019 Alcohol and Drug Dependency Study
MASH Inspection checklist
III. MY QUALIFICATIONS AND A LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AUTHORED BY ME
I am President of the Community of Recovering People board of directors and of The Retreat in
Minnesota. I have been a member of the CORP board since its beginnings, and I’m one of the
principle designers of The Retreat model of care. Prior to beginning my employment with CORP in
April 1998, I was employed by the Hazelden Foundation for 19 years. In my years at Hazelden, I
served in a variety of roles, including; Vice President of Hazelden’s National Continuum, Executive
Director of Hazelden’s Outreach Services, Executive Director of Fellowship Club, Hazelden’s
intermediate care facility in St. Paul, MN, Unit Supervisor of two of Hazelden’s primary treatment
units and as a chemical dependency counselor. I was also an instructor in Hazelden’s professional
education program, teaching group therapy, advanced counseling skills and the treatment of special
populations.
I have a Masters Degree in Human and Health Services Administration from Saint Mary’s
University of Minnesota; I’m a graduate of Hazelden’s Counselor Training Program, and I’m a
licensed counselor in the State of Minnesota.
I have served on numerous boards, including; Community of Recovering People, Sobriety High
School, I am the past President of the Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of North
America (AHHAP) and co -founder and current vice chair of the Minnesota Association of Sober
Homes (MASH). I have served as a guest faculty for Rutgers Summer School for Advanced
Addiction Studies and is the author of “A Caring Community, The Story of The Retreat” and co-
author of a Hazelden publication titled “Letting Go”.
I have dedicated my life to the creation of affordable accessible recovery communities throughout
the United States and many other countries. I led the efforts to set up Hazelden’s treatment
continuum in New York City, Chicago and their intermediate care program in West Palm Beach
Florida.
The Retreat model of recovery is rapidly becoming a national standard for a non-clinical, spiritually
grounded, affordable approach to helping people access recovery from alcohol and drug
dependency. The Retreat has captured the hearts of recovering alcoholics and professionals
12
throughout the country. It has gained a reputation, not only as an affordable, effective approach to
helping people recover, but as a great place for alcoholics in recovery to be of service to others. I
have consulted with many individuals and organizations throughout the United States and abroad
interested in replicating The Retreat model of recovery. Programs modeling themselves after The
Retreat model now exist in Hong Kong, New Zealand, Sioux Falls South Dakota, Vero Beach
Florida, Austin, Texas, Portland, Oregon and Nashville Tennessee with upcoming projects in Dallas
Texas and Sydney Australia.
In my work with the Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of North America
(AHHAP) and the Minnesota Association of Sober Homes (MASH), I have worked tirelessly to
promote the development of quality halfway house and sober-living environments in the Twin
Cities, throughout the United States and in many other countries.
IV. CASES IN WHICH I HAVE TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT AT TRIAL OR BY
DEPOSITION IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS
I have not previously testified as an expert witness at a trial or by deposition.
V. STATEMENT OF THE COMPENSATION PAID IN THIS CASE
My stated compensation in this case will be $250 per hour for research, review of documents, report
writing, conference calls, and $2,500 per day for testimony in court or in deposition plus
compensation for reasonable and necessary expenses.
Dated: December 1, 2020
_______________________________
John H Curtiss
1
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Elizabeth Hattlestad
Address: 100 Homedale Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/21/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Bean, I live at 100 Homedale road and have lived here with my family for 15 yrs. I am
writing in response to the letter I received about a request to allow for 9 unrelated individuals to live
at 101 Oakwood rd. It is my understanding that the disability in question is alcoholism. 2 yrs ago or
so, when the current owner bought the house, he wanted to start a “sober house” and rent out
rooms to recovering alcoholics. A group of neighbors went to the city council and spoke out against
the “sober house.” It seems the owner at 101 is trying a different angle to achieve the same goal by
manipulating the housing laws in Hopkins. Our community has a lot of activity on the streets (dog
walkers, bikers, parents with strollers, skateboardes, walkers, etc.) People of all ages are out and
about. We are single family dwellings because we enjoy this atmosphere. There was not a “sober
house” here when people bought their houses and they may have made a different choice to live here
if there was. Having a group of recovering alcoholics (who may have relapses) in an area where so
many people are out and about is unnecessary. Further, I do not see a reasonable cause for rezoning.
The owner got the house fairly-without discrimination. The law supports him renting out to 3 others
(so long as he get a rental permit). The city has given no evidence of need to provide housing for more
than 4 unrelated people at 101 Oakwood. Also, Hopkins is way ahead of the bar in providing low
income and subsidized housing options. 101 Oakwood does not have a void to fill. I would argue the
same if alcoholism is not the disability in question. There is also the concern of length of stay, under "
reasonable accommodation.” What are the requirements for the tenants in terms of length of stay. I
think renters have to be in place 6 months- what would be the situation for 101 Oakwood? If you
allow 9 unrelated people, what happens when one moves out? Is it for any 9 people or a specific 9?
A blanket- "9 people can live there" accommodation is too loose. Is he renting the rooms? Does he
have a rental license/agreements? Are there background checks on the non-owners as required for
renters? How will the possible turnover and rental situation be monitored? What about parking?
That location will fit a couple cars in the driveway, the other 7 cars would be along the main road or in
front of neighbors. Not reasonable. Finally, I do not want to start a precedent in the neighborhood
where single family houses are turned into apartment complexes— which is basically what is being
requested. I am completely against having any house in the neighborhood rezoned. Please keep this
community as is and do not allow this accommodation request to go through. Thank you, Betsy
Hatlestad
Staff Review:
Staff finds that most of the provided comments to do relate required findings of the ordinance. The
commenter offers a question regarding how the turnover will be monitored, which staff does find
relates to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (1) and Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7) relating to how the City can be
continuously assured that the residents of 101 Oakwood Road have a disability and would be allowed
to live in the home, and the administrative burden keeping track of this would cause to the City. The
commenter also provides current inconsistencies with parking and what was proposed by the
applicant.
2
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Steve Mohabir
Address: Address Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/22/2022
Comments:
I live about 5 houses from the property in question and not in favor. The location is not suitable nor
reasonable accommodations for up to 9 non-related individuals. As you may know, this is the owner’s
second attempt (that I know) to have more people in the home. It is already too busy with the 4
allowed as there are multiple cars and trucks coming and going at that home all the time.
Staff Review:
Staff finds this comment regarding parking and traffic relates to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 relating to negative
impact on health, safety, and general welfare
3
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Bob Bonnett
Address: 123 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/23/2022
Comments:
Hello Peggy Sue. I own a home, 123 Interlachen Road, about 1 block from the home @ 101 Oakwood
Road
I have left message for you to call me so I can learn more about this situation.
I would like to know who the location owner is, and how long have they been the owner.
I have owned 123 Interlachen Road for about 40 years and that 101 was at one time owned by a
realtor in the area.
My concern is about the value of what I own that is so close to 101 AND so close to the church which
is across
The street. If fact the school opening is directly across from 101 Oakwood. Many children attend this
school during school days.
If there is a need for disabled persons to be cared for, I would think a ONE STORY facility might be
better that the
Multi story building @ 101 Oakwood. This might make sense for wheel chair access at a one story
building, not a building with 2 + stories.
Seems to me the 101 Oakwood is zoned as a home and a change of increased occupancy could be
done for other homes nearby,
And this might not be suitable to many residents of this area that I have known for decades.
Kindly call or email me so I know who I should meet with to get a better understanding of
WHY Hopkins needs to consider an adoption of this request, given the nature of surrounding homes
& church.
Thanks Bob Bonnett 612 669 3810
123 Interlachen Road
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments do not relate to the required findings outlined in the ordinance on this
request.
4
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Molly O'Brien Dufour
Address: 14 Maple Hill Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/23/2022
Comments:
Hello Peggy Sue-
i reside at 14 Maple Hill Road, about 2 blocks from the 101 Oakwood Road sober house.
I am strongly opposed to allowing 9 unrelated individuals to live in the house at 101 Oakwood. Currently the city of Hopkins only allows 4
unrelated individuals to live in that home. I am confident that more than 4 unrelated individuals have resided in the home to date. The
residents come and go consistently. Has this been audited at all by the City?
What the owner, Kevin Stanton, is doing is admirable. How successful is his program? How many of the 4 residents succeed with their
sobriety and staying drug free that there is a reason to provide more 'disabled' individuals to be part of this program? What is the average
length of stay, when 18 months is the recommended time?
Is the City auditing the background checks and randomly checking for compliance?
This home is in a neighborhood. There are families with children living in this neighborhood. This is an active neighborhood with a
newsletter, dues and community activities. Neighbors know each other, but Kevin does not engage with this neighborhood. He is not a part
of the community.
There is a school and church directly across the street (i.e. formerly convent). Although the school is not being used for that purpose now, it
could be in the future.
The City of Hopkins has plenty of low income and subsidized housing. There is a plethora of rentals in the City (only 40% of the homes are
owned which effects taxes). Could we attempt to make homeowners happy with limiting the number of individuals to four unrelated in the
101 Oakwood residence?
I would be happy to talk to you. Please support this neighborhood and vote no to add more unrelated people to live at 101 Oakwood.
Thank you for take this seriously and listening to the residents.
Molly O'Brien Dufour
Another email was sent 6/30/2022:
Thanks again for your responses!
i remember know the applicant stating cars would not be in the street. i have observed that there have been cars parked (typically 3 cars;
the same cars) in the street for the last 4 days on Boyce. That's what instigated my question.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that much of the provided comments to not relate required findings of the ordinance. The
commenter offers a question regarding how the turnover will be monitored, which staff does find
relates to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (1) and Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7) relating to how the City can be
continuously assured that the residents of 101 Oakwood Road have a disability and would be allowed
to live in the home, and the administrative burden keeping track of this would cause to the City. The
commenter also notes that they have observed that more than 4 residents currently reside in the
home, which exceeds the applicants current rental license restrictions.
5
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Tad VanderVorste
Address: 119 Oakwood Rd
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/24/2022
Comments:
PeggySue,
I am writing to express my thoughts about exceptions/changes under consideration for 101 Oakwood,
the property owned by Kevin Stanton. Specifically, the changes would allow up to nine unrelated
individuals to live at the property.
We love our neighborhood and pay steep property taxes. Our expectations are for city leaders to
make decisions that protect the value of our property, as well as residents in the area. I was, and still
am, opposed to allowing four unrelated people to live in a single family home, but expanding to nine
makes no sense and is not "reasonable". Authorizing, what would essentially be, a boarding house in
a residential neighborhood would not be a decision that protects the residents or property values and
must not be allowed.
I expect a public hearing will be scheduled so this significant decision can receive an appropriate level
of attention and public input.
Please contact me if there are questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that the comments above relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (6) that nine persons may be a
fundamental change in the zoning regulations and the area of the request.
6
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Elizabeth Hatlestad
Address: 100 Homedale Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/24/2022
Comments:
Thank you for the information and quick response. I realize you have had several inquiry’s into this.
How can we get this to be a public hearing as the city has already denied the owner creating a sober
house, but he is already doing so. The owner does not live at the residence and has no way to
appropriately manage or monitor 9 individuals in the midst of sobering up. Thank you for your time
and guidance. This is a very family friendly neighborhood and it is distressing to have to keep on
revisiting this situation. I do not understand how the city is not supporting reasonable
accommodation as persons with disability already live at the location. The owner simply wants more
people there. That is a want…not a need. If he wants to expand his program (which he isn’t suppose
to be running at that house), it should be his responsibility to find a location that allows for multi-
dwelling living, not for the city to change zoning laws for him. Thank you, Betsy
Staff Review:
Staff finds this comment regarding the owner’s ability to manage the property relates to Sec. 1-21 (d)
8 and 9.
7
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Elizabeth Hattlestad
Address: 100 Homedale Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/24/2022
Comments:
Hello PeggySue, thank you again for your quick response. I wanted to clarify my comments. In 2019,
neighbors banded together regarding concerns for 101 Oakwood because of the amount of people
in/out of the house and the lack of rental license for that location. May 7, 2019, representatives for
our neighborhood met with City Council and spoke during the Open agenda portion. Following are the
minutes for that. We did not want to overwhelm the city with people so I did not attend the
meeting. I apologize for the confusing comment about sober license application, however, I wanted
to show that the concept of a sober house has been in play since the current ownership of 101
Oakwood. I hope this makes more sense to you and why we keep on referring to it as an, “ongoing
issue.” The owner was able to get the rental permit for the zoned 4 people. He now wants to expand
that number and that is what is scary to us all because of the total lack of any legal organization or
monitoring.The are no checks and balances. Further, as to his comment that residents won’t park on
the street, I can go to his house rt now and take a picture of the 2 cars that are always parked on curb
along Boyce street, directly across from the church. How can he enforce no parking on the street with
5 more people, when he does not currently do so for the 4 living there? Betsy
Staff Review:
The applicant has stated that if the reasonable accommodation is approved parking along the street
will not occur. Street parking by anyone in the neighborhood is legally allowed, however it is noted by
staff that according to public comment, currently the applicant is not fulfilling his own offer to not
allow residents to park on the street.
8
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kris Collins
Address: 6 Maple Hill Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/24/2022
Comments:
I live at 6 Maple Hill Road - please note our strong objection. While I commend the homeowner’s
efforts, the reality of having this home in our neighborhood, under his ownership has not been a
positive experience for any of the neighbors. I would ask that the city look at how it is being
managed, monitored and maintained to date as well as considering strongly the feedback from those
of us that live in the neighborhood.
Staff Review:
Commenter notes concern over management of property, staff finds this relates to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd.
(7) on the administrative burden of the request.
9
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Rene Gabrik
Address: 154 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/24/2022
Comments:
PeggySue,
Thank you so much for returning my call today and answering my questions.
I know this is not an easy process.
Here is what I would like to have added to the record of public comment:
While I am all for giving people second chances, and I do believe they are deserved, 9 adults living in
one household is simply too many. I say that taking out all other circumstances.
Nine adult people, with no other issues or concerns, is too many people living in one household. Now,
add in the other issues that we know the people who will live there have, and it complicates the
situation further.
There are already four people living in the home. I’m not suggesting they be removed, I’m only
suggesting that it should be the limit.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that the comments above relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (6) that nine persons may be a
fundamental change in the zoning regulations and the area of the request.
10
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Matt & Katie Weisenberg
Address: 1611 Preston Lane
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/25/2022
Comments:
The ownership group is known for a distinct lack of honesty. It previously tried to sneak in a group
sober home at 101 Oakwood with a residency in excess of city ordinance. A practice they had been
found guilty of in at least one other instance. It was not an accident. Please look at the notes from
City Council meetings from June 2019. The neighborhood was unified in its opposition due to the
utter lack of integrity.
This sounds like an attempt to once again get his group home and the state/private funds that come
with.
This request should be denied.
Sincerely,
Matt & Katie Weisenberg
1611 Preston Lane
Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Staff finds that these comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
11
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Cathie Etienne
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 6/25/2022
Comments:
We spoke to some of our neighbours. They mentioned that in 2019, when this same request was up
for consideration it was brought to the city council and the neighborhood had an opportunity to come
together and speak to the issue. Interlachen residents were opposed to the housing situation at 101
Oakwood then and they still are. Not sure why if it wasn’t allowed back then why it’s up for
consideration now?
Please stop the future expansion of rental tenants at 101 Oakwood, and also stop the bad things that
already are happening there. Just look at the police reports.
This is a pedestrian neighborhood full of multi-generational families where grandparents feel safe
walking the streets, parents walk dogs and push strollers and groups of kids play in the middle of the
street.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that the comments do not relate to the required findings of the ordinance. A review of
public safety calls to this property does not show especially concerning activity. However, staff notes
that the volume of calls and increase in the number of calls is concerning.
12
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Britannia Ramstrom
Address: 220 Holly Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/25/2022
Comments:
Hello,
I wanted to provide comments regarding 101 Oakwood's request for special accommodation to be
rezoned away from being a single family home. This request seeks a rezoning that would be
appropriate for low intensity residential treatment center (sober living/halfway house), yet as far as I
am aware they are not a licensed facility that is reviewed by the government, correct? It appears that
this person can/has owned this home, and can/has the ability to rent it out to up to four others for
"social sobriety". This in my mind is fair and equal access that any other resident would receive
for this property.
It appears to me that they have recourse to become a registered facility and then make this request.
By doing this, they are truly demonstrating the nature of their disabilities in a group setting
which would include proper rules and staffing to ensure the safety of renters and the community. If
this request was granted outside of a low intensity residential treatment center, I fear that people
struggling with this disability could be taken advantage of/or suffer relapse due to lack of proper
oversight. This goes against the nature of the request.
Without government oversight that comes with becoming a sober living/halfway house, I don't know
that this house or its facilities can accommodate the unique needs of the disability in question.
Britannia Ramstrom
220 Holly Road Hopkins mn 55343
Staff Review:
Commenter acknowledges that currently the applicant can rent out to four tenants, and staff would
like further information as it relates to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (3) whether or not this provides equivalent
level of benefit as nine persons.
13
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Judy Worrell
Address: 148 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/26/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihi Bean, Hopkins Mayor, Hopkins City Council Members and Director of Planning and
Economic Development,
I would respectfully request this email be read in its entirety as I have invested significant personal
time to communicate a concerning matter for myself, my family and my neighborhood of Interlachen
Park
Re: Property at 101 Oakwood Road, Hopkins, MN 55343
Owner’s request for Reasonable Accommodation to allow 9 individuals to live at this property which
is out of the stipulation of the property’s current zoning.
We are aware you are receiving communication of concerns from multiple neighbors of which we
trust are not dismissed in any way. There clearly have been multiple current problems with the owner
and resident behavior at 101 Oakwood Road and our community's expectation is that our feedback
and input bears weight in future decision-making.
To gather information recorded in City records specific to this owner’s compliance with current
license and ordinances is an arduous process however, the continual observations of the property
have been enough to be familiar with the adversarial relationship of the owner and at times from the
residents on the property. Police calls to the property, unruly behavior, and verbally abusive
comments from those on the property have not been isolated experiences.
I would like to quickly get to the point of this communication and request you provide a response
regarding some specific questions. Any documentation you can provide to bring clarity (or correction
of any misinformation) to the following questions would be important and welcomed.
1) Is it true the City has never gained access to the 101 Oakwood Road property for any inspection
related to the rental licensure held by the current owner?
2) Is it true that in October 2021 the owner refused access to the Fire Department, and at that time
the owner communicated that the City attorney would need to contact his attorney to gain access?
We are aware Covid has created some changes in inspection schedules but a refused specific request
for an inspection met with a snub to contact his attorney requires an explanation and also should
have generated an accelerated concern and follow-through from City management. This situation
should have translated into the accomplishment of the inspection. Please confirm if that did or did
not take place.
Such an interaction alone should be grounds to deny any further accommodation when the owner is
noncompliant with the basic expectations and guidelines of his current licensure. The greater and
unknown concern is why would the owner not allow inspections to assure there is indeed an
14
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
environment of safety for his residents? This should be a fundamental concern of any property owner
and to refuse inspections begs the question, could this be placing the residents at risk.
3) If the owner has refused, why was this situation not elevated to an authority to accomplish
compliance? The neighbors of Interlachen Park are deeply concerned with the City’s handling of the
current situations and any thought of granting a Reasonable Accommodation only places in question
multiplication and potential acceleration of current problems.
Hopkins residents expect responsible governance to track all records of compliance and
noncompliance with City ordinances. This is in essence an assurance a neighbor experiences their
right to enjoy their property without interference. This currently is NOT the situation and the abysmal
current conditions would only be anticipated to become an even greater concern with an increase in
the house census.
Based on the owner’s lack of compliance with current licensure expectations and a track record of
questionable behaviors of some residents, any increase in the house census granted through a
Reasonable Accommodation must be denied.
Respectively,
Judy Worrell
148 Interlachen Road, Hopkins, MN
45 year resident of Interlachen Park
Staff Review:
While police records do not indicate calls which show negative interacting with the tenants at the
subject property, staff notes that the commenter indicates they have suffered verbal abuse from
tenants. Staff also notes that the volume of calls to the property is concerning.
It is correct that the applicant did request that rental inspections be scheduled through the City
Attorney and the applicant’s personal attorney This does give staff concern as it relates to Sec. 1-21
(d) subd. (7) on the administrative burden on continued inspections of the property and other
associated communications and dealings with the applicant.
15
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Patrick DuFour
Address: 14 Maple Hill Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
Dear PeggySue Imihy
I strongly object to the request for reasonable accommodation 101 Oakwood Road to increase non-
related residents to 9 individuals. There are many reason for this objection. It starts with the safety of
the residents of Interlachen Park. It would increase the number of cars and traffic significantly with 9
individuals in one residence. There are a large number of young children in the neighbor hood that
ride bikes, walk and travel to each others houses, this increase of cars would put them at risk of being
hit or even worse.
Another issue with that number of people in a residence that has not been inspected by the Fire Dept.
it could be a significant fire risk. If a fire were to break out, could that number of residents escape?
With that number of non- related residents all cooking their meals independently is there not a
greater risk of a fire happening?
Finally the fact that Kevin Stanton is using this residence as a profit making venture in a home that is
zoned residential and is asking to increase the number of residents so he can increase his profitability
at the expanse of Interlachen Park’s safety and stability is outrageous.
Before any decision is made I would call for a public hearing or a process that involves the residents of
Interlachen Park.
Sincerely,
Pat Dufour
14 Maple Hill Rd.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that the comments about increased traffic and parking relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9. Staff
notes that rental properties and whether or not the applicant would benefit financially is not a
consideration of the request.
16
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Judy Worrell
Address: 148 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
Thank you again Ms Imihy Bean for your prompt reply.
Although I agree some of our concerns may be well addressed by Chief Specken, I know it is
imperative that you are fully included and aware of these communications as they should rightfully
and directly affect any decision-making regarding any application of accommodations are made by
this owner. Full disclosure within the public record regarding disturbing behaviors and compliance or
lack thereof is one of our greatest concerns.
If I may be forthright and clear Ms Imihy Bean, the interaction with this owner has an ongoing 4-year
history and the residents of Interlachen Park are advocating for our neighbors who have keenly taken
the brunt of the unpleasant and concerning interface with this owner and the property’s tenants. An
identical role of advocacy is also expected from our elected officials and City employees. Concerns are
ever-present and have been subsequently elevated to basic elements of our safety and welfare. This
is a very unsettling state to live in and certainly not the culture of this historic neighborhood.
It is an unknown what this owner and tenants will do going forward in their relationships with their
neighbors. There is a sense of nervousness for our future given this individual’s behavior on many
fronts. It is unsettling and we are left with a sense of powerlessness. We are looking to you and other
City leaders to step in to enforce all possible remedies to our concerns.
Keeping you, Ms Imihy Bean, in these communications is imperative that you are fully aware of all
circumstances to comprehensively support the power you have in decision making. As it is not
possible to fully understand how well the lines of communication are working among City leaders on
this matter, we request you remain included in our communications.
Sincerely,
Judy Worrell
Staff Review:
Staff notes that review of police calls does not validate resident concerns related to public
disturbances, however the volume of calls is concerning to staff. It is noted that several residents
have made comments regarding interactions of this sort with residents at the subject property.
17
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Bill Haertzen
Address: 200 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my objection to the request by the owner of 101
Oakwood Road, Hopkins, to allow for Reasonable Accommodation to allow nine unrelated individuals
to live at said address. The owner of the property is either unwilling or unable to control the behavior
of his current tenants which to my understanding is limited to four unrelated individuals. This has
been evidenced by their interactions with neighbors including public urination on other peoples
property, destruction of neighbors private property, alleged overdose of tenants, loud arguing among
the tenants. This list is by no means exhaustive.
The residence is a revolving door of tenants that has been the subject of numerous police calls. I’m
sure your internal records reflect this. It has also been reported that the owner has refused the city’s
attempt to inspect the property and referred the situation to his lawyer. If true, it seems someone is
hiding something and it is incumbent upon the city to determine if the owner is in compliance with all
current laws and regulations. The question before the city should not be an expansion of his business
but a revocation of his current permission to run his business. I would like to see all communication
not just between the city and the property owner but all communication between city staff and
employees regarding 101 Oakwood. The residents of Interlachen Park need evidence that the city is
fulfilling their legal obligations with respect to 101 Oakwood. Thank you in advance for your timely
response to my requests.
Sincerely,
Bill Haertzen
200 Interlachen Road
Staff Review:
Staff notes that review of police calls does not validate resident concerns related to public
disturbances, however the volume of calls is concerning to staff. It is noted that several residents
have made comments regarding interactions of this sort with residents at the subject property.
18
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Karen and David Engelbret
Address: 137 Maple Hill Rd
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
Ms. Imihy Bean,
My husband and I, David and Karen Engelbret, live at 137 Maple Hill Rd, Hopkins. We read the Notice
of Reasonable Accommodation Request, June 17, 2022, and are compelled to express our concern for
the health and safety of both the neighborhood and the tenants the applicant is advocating for.
First, the outright abrogation of the Hopkins Code related to the number of unrelated individuals
living together is in no one's best interest, residents or the people the applicant claims to be serving.
It is over crowding, which we all know can lead to frustration and disputes. It makes no sense and
once the code-breaking precedent is set, it is subject to future compromise.
Second, neighborhood residents don't have the information needed to determine the applicant's
history with these homes, services provided, inspection reports, and safety record of the
neighborhoods of these residences. How do we obtain this information? When will this issue come
before the City Council again? We do wish to further influence this decision.
Thanks for your time and attention,
Karen and David Engelbret
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments are unrelated to the required findings of the ordinance.
19
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Gini Kirscht
Address: 11 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
ATTN: PeggySue Imihy Bean, Hopkins Mayor, Hopkins City Council Members
Respectfully, I submit my concerns regarding the request for ‘reasonable accommodation for nine(9)
individuals…..” for the referenced property.
My knowledge of multiple issues at 101 Oakwood Road include safety, noncompliance of City
regulations and rules, parking, monitoring ,.. all troubling at best.
I agree with all submitted concerns regarding this property.
I trust that our City Officials will do their due diligence and respect our investment in Interlachen
Park.
Interlachen Park has been my home (three houses) for over forty-five years.
Gini Kirscht
11 Interlachen Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments are unrelated to the required findings of the ordinance and notes that
they are only general in nature.
20
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Tim and Sue Whalen
Address: 142 Oakwood Rd
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/27/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Elverum, and City Council Members,
Like many of my neighbors in the Interlachen Park Neighborhood, I am writing to voice the concerns
of both my wife and I regarding the outstanding request at 101 Oakwood Rd. As a resident of
Oakwood Road, we have numerous concerns regarding the request that you have in front of you.
Many of those have been laid out quite nicely by my concerned neighbors, so I won't repeat them
here as well.
Based on the limited amount of information that we have been provided, and based on the track
record of Mr Stanton to date, we would request that you deny his request as submitted. We would
also request a public hearing with our neighborhood so that we can have an in depth
discussion regarding the request from Mr Stanton. Without the information, and an open discussion,
it is impossible to know whether or not to support his request.
We trust that you will fulfill your duties to represent the residents of this fine community as per your
oath of office.
We look forward to the public hearing on this matter. Thank you for listening to all the feedback from
our neighborhood and treating this matter appropriately.
Sincerely,
Tim and Sue Whalen
142 Oakwood Rd
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments are unrelated to the required findings of the ordinance and are general in
nature.
21
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Carol Watzke
Address: 1402 Preston Lane
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Thank you for your response to my questions. While I recognize the need for fair housing, it seems that
there must be some regulations for this property beyond a zoning exception for "nine unrelated people
with disabilities to live together."
Will the property owner be required to be licensed to operate a rental property for people with
disabilities?
How will the potential residents be screened and vetted to assure that they are on a recovery track?
Will they be supervised?
What is the potential turnover rate for residents moving in and out?
Will the residents require therapy or treatment and will such be provided on-site by the property owner?
Will the property owner carry the appropriate insurance to cover any issues that may arise from such a
property and its residents?
How will residents of this neighborhood be assured of the safety of themselves and their families?
There are many young children in the neighborhood that we must protect.
I object to the approval of this proposal. This is a relatively small and very well-established family
neighborhood. I do not want one such exception to become precedent for turning Interlachen Park into
something other than that.
Thank you.
Carol Watzke
1402 Preston Ln
Hopkins 55343
cjwindfeldt@yahoo.com
Staff Review:
22
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Staff finds these comments are unrelated to the required findings of the ordinance. Ms. Watzke was
provided the applicants application in response to her questions.
23
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Jon Kagan
Address: 200 Homedale Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Accommodation Specialist
As a resident of Interlaken Park, living ~3 blocks from 101 Oakwood Dr, I believe that the request to
accommodate 9 unrelated people with a disability at 101 Oakwood is reasonable and should be
approved
Thank you
Jon Kagan
200 Homedale Rd Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Comment is noted.
24
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Dave Almquist
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Hello, I am writing to expressed that I am not in favor of going from four individuals that are currently
living there to 9. I believe adding any more people to that home would cause many problems or
could cause many issues within the neighborhood and pose as a safety threat to people and children.
One big issue as I see many vehicles parked there which would increase tremendously. I know that
the illness is not stated however if these are people and men that are in recovery I do not feel that
this is the right location for it. I also feel that if it is granted to move to nine unrelated individuals then
this request may keep coming up over and over again and they will leverage this as a means to
accommodating another request , in essence where would it end?
Thanks
David Almquist
651-353-5035
Staff Review:
Staff finds the comments related to traffic and parking are related to Section 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
25
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Tim Molepske
Address: 1603 Preston Lane
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Peggy Sue,
I'm writing in response to the Notice of Reasonable Accommodation Request at 101 Oakwood Road.
I understand that the City of Hopkins must provide reasonable accommodations to those with
disabilities. I applaud that effort. However, nothing in that notice explains how changing city code to
increase residency from 4 to 9 individuals supports or accommodates those with disabilities.
I would assume that the organization running this house is also complying with ADA requirements
such as ramps, wheel chair accesibility and an elevator to the second floor?
Based on this notice, I do not support this code change as there looks to be no supporting reasoning
or explanation for how or why this accommodation is reasonable.
Thank you.
-Tim Molepske
1603 Preston Ln
Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Given that alcoholism is the disability for which the accommodation is requested, requiring physical
accessibility related changes to the Property is not a factor in approval of this request. Staff finds that
the comments do not relate to the required findings of the ordinance.
26
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Katie Dalton
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Dear PeggySue Imihy Bean,
I would like the residence of 101 Oakwood Rd Hopkins MN to remain at the 4 person max capacity
limit. There is already extra cars parked on the street and adding more individuals will increase cars
and traffic to our neighborhood streets where many children bike and run. We are a residential family
neighborhood and not a commercial space.
Thank you-
Interlachen Park resident
Staff Review:
Staff finds the comments related to traffic and parking are related to Section 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
27
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kasey Hatzung
Address: 249 Hawthorne Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy Bean,
I am a resident of Interlachen Park and am writing to share my concerns regarding the potential conversion of 101 Oakwood
Road from its current state as a 4-person residential rental home into a proposed 9-person sober living facility by owner
Kevin Stanton.
My husband and I used to live across the street at 112 Oakwood so we know the 101 property well. We have two teen boys
and now reside at 249 Hawthorne Road which is the fourth house in the neighborhood I have resided in over 45 years. We
know this as a community of friendly, accepting, helpful neighbors. When we first heard of 101 Oakwood becoming a sober
living home, we believed we would be a community that could openly welcome in these new residents. My husband Dan
and I are big supporters of the recovery community and when Mr. Stanton took on the property we saw much needed
improvements happen to the house and yard. We felt it was a positive start.
However, it is Mr. Stanton’s pursuit of expanding the house to accommodate more residents that many neighbors within
proximity of the home have shared disturbing facts with us. Such as, it was discovered in 2018 that Mr. Stanton had multiple
tenants at the house before obtaining a rental license, there have been rude and unsightly interactions with female
neighbors, and it appears a lack of transparency and follow-through and following protocols with the city. I question that if
Mr. Stanton has not successfully maintained positive relationships with our neighborhood and city that more than doubling
the house’s capacity is a recipe for disaster.
This is not a neighborhood of revolving doors. These are single family homes with resident longevity and where we know
one another. We welcome Mr. Stanton to be one of these members but he has not engaged and built relationships. With the
home being situated in the heart of our neighborhood where children gather and roam, we want and need to know who are
neighbors are. It is my understanding that the residents in Mr. Stanton’s house may stay up to 18 months. That is a model
where four residents can indeed get to know their neighbors and become a part of the community. However, if residents are
staying a much shorter time period, and if the house capacity is increased to nine people, it’s possible that TENS of people
would be moving through with a year’s time and that alone is very concerning.
Based on the above, I believe Mr. Stanton has the opportunity to improve the relationship with the neighborhood and build
an excellent program on a small scale. But because he has failed to achieve his stated goals with the property in its current
state since 2018, has had poor interactions with the neighborhood, and he has demonstrated a lack of follow-up and
compliance with city, his proposal to expand to nine residents should be denied.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concern. I appreciate your efforts in bettering our city.
Kindly
Staff Review:
While police records do not indicate calls which show negative interactions with the tenants at the
subject property, staff notes this is another comment indicating these interactions have occurred.
Staff also notes that it is correct that the applicant did have tenants prior to obtaining a rental license
through the city in 2018, this is a consideration for staff under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (9).
28
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kaj Thompson
Address: 254 Holly Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
Hello,
I’m not in support of any sort of variance to allow for this request.
9 unrelated people seems like way too many.
Thank you.
Kaj
254 Holly Rd
Staff Review:
Comments are noted, but unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
29
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Harry and Suzanne Robinson
Address: 2 Maple Hill Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/28/2022
Comments:
We would like to add our extreme concerns regarding the preposterous situation you are considering
regarding the occupancy of 101 Oakwood. As you have already received so many valid objections, we
need not elaborate further, but want to make sure our displeasure is noted.
Sincerely,
Harry and Suzanne Robinson
2 Maple Hill Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Comments are noted, but unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
30
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Dan Marx
Address:
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Hi PeggySue,
As a resident in the Interlachen Park neighborhood with my family, I'm writing to deny
the Accommodation Request for the property located at 101 Oakwood Road Hopkins, MN
55343. This property has a history of violating city regulations and should in no way be able to
accommodate 9 men and their transportation vehicles. This would cause stress on our streets as
Hopkins already has an abundance of multifamily and rental units, compared to other cities in the
metro area. While I agree with a property owner's rights to maximize the profit potential of the
property, I'm very concerned with the safety and security of the residents in that home as well as the
families in this community. Please reach out with any questions, thank you for reading my comments.
Regards,
Dan Marx
44 Meadowbrook Rd, Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
Staff assumes the commenter is discussing that the applicant did not obtain a rental license in 2018,
prior to allowing tenants in the property. This this is a consideration for staff under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd.
8 and 9.
31
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Walter and Heidi Poxon
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
My wife and I received a letter from the City of Hopkins yesterday soliciting comments regarding
the notice of reasonable accommodation for 101 Oakwood Road.
Our feedback would be that we would prefer that the City of Hopkins not grant the request to house
9 persons in the home where normally 4 would be allowed.
We're not versed in zoning law, but we moved to the Interlachen Park neighborhood because we
wanted to live in a neighborhood with single-family homes.
As current residents in the neighborhood, we are not in favor of seeing 101 Oakwood or any other
house in the Interlachen Park neighborhood converted into higher-density shared housing for
unrelated individuals.
We would request that the City of Hopkins deny the request that has been put forward to allow 101
Oakwood Road to be used as a 9-person group home and that the City recommend that the project
that is seeking the accommodation look at other locations within Hopkins that are currently zoned for
higher-density housing for their project.
Thank you,
Walter Poxon (walter@poxon.net)
Heidi Poxon (heidi@poxon.net)
Staff Review:
Staff finds that there may be merit to the argument that the scale of the proposed project may be a
fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations and/or nature of the area in which the
accommodation is being requested (Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (6)).
32
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Adam Engebretson
Address: 235 Holly Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/25/2022
Comments:
Hello,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the (un)reasonable accommodation request for the property at
101 Oakwood Road in Hopkins.
The ownership group has a prior history of disregarding the city’s rental property regulations and
attempting to evade the rules adhered to by law-abiding neighbors. The city should see through this
disingenuous request and see that it is merely another ploy to rent a single family home in a quiet,
residential neighborhood to an absurdly high nine people. The LLC that owns the property was
terminated by the State of Minnesota on 2/1/22. So the legal owner is not even a legal business
entity.
There is not enough parking to accommodate that many residents.
The proposal would more than double the current occupancy.
Opposition to this proposal is not opposition to people with disabilities or chemical dependency. The
opposition is to housing nine residents in a single family home on a quiet street across from a park.
If the city were to approve this, it would set a dangerous precedent for all of Hopkins.
I respectfully ask that the city stick to its prior precedent and reject this request.
Thank you,
Adam Engebretson
235 Holly Road
612-205-9208
Staff Review:
33
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Staff assumes the commenter is discussing that the applicant did not obtain a rental license in 2018,
prior to allowing tenants in the property. This this is a consideration for staff under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd.
(9). The City notes that ninety n ninety was reinstated on October 3, 2022 after the City point out this
issue to the applicant.
34
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Ted Waldeck
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy Bean,
Thank you for your careful consideration of Mr. Stanton and Ninety N Ninety LLC’s Accommodation Request. I’m aware you’ve been
inundated with input from concerned citizens/neighbors and appreciate your efforts.
I am a resident of Interlachen Park (since 2010) and previously lived across the street from the house now owned by Ninety N Ninety. The
purpose of my letter is not to call attention to the safety and welfare issues that exist at 101 Oakwood but rather to point out some issues
with Mr. Stanton and Ninety N Ninety LLC’s application. Based on the information, and often lack of information, provided in the
application I believe you and the City have ample grounds to deny this request. From my review of the information submitted, a denial is
likely required.
Evidence of Disability
On page one of the application Stanton is asked to explain why the current zoning controls act is a barrier to fair housing due to disability. I
would note Mr. Stanton has failed to identify a single individual who is or will be residing in the house. Mr. Stanton has failed to provide the
City with any documentation verifying he, or any of the individuals living in the home (or who intend to live in the home) suffer from a
disability. I expect that something beyond “take my word for it” is required before even considering a significant departure from the
current and longstanding zoning controls Mr. Stanton now seeks.
I also understand Mr. Stanton does not himself live in the house which is used by him as a for-profit rental property. To the extent he
actually suffers from a disability (not established) it would seem irrelevant given the fact he is not a resident of the home. I would thus
expect that, at a minimum, Mr. Stanton would be required to provide verifiable evidence of disability for those residing in the home. This
would apply to all 9 individuals given the fact this is the sole basis for the request to depart from current zoning controls.
Proposed Use and Description
Mr. Stanton provided a Proposed Use and Description of Project Statement in which he states vaguely that the home will function as a sober
living home and that the home will provide support to recovering alcoholics. Mr. Stanton has provided no evidence of licensing nor any
information to verify he is operating a legitimate sober home. Even being generous to Mr. Stanton, the submitted paperwork appears to
indicate there are a number of recovering alcoholics living in the home—this does not qualify the house as a “sober home.” Noticeably
missing from the application is a description of the programs the home provides to qualify as a sober home or help the residents deal with
recovering “physically, spiritually, and emotionally” as stated by Stanton. He did however provide a release of liability for that would
protect Mr. Stanton and his company from liability on the event something goes south in the house. A typical or legitimate sober home
operates under an agreement with the county or other recovery programs whereby individuals are referred to the home as part of a release
or recovery program. Here, there is no actual program to speak of and frankly the entire enterprise wreaks of a scam. Mr. Stanton makes
reference to a relationship with Alcoholics Anonymous yet doesn’t provide the City with any documentation memorializing a relationship
between his for-profit business and any recovery or county program. Again, the City is put in the position of taking his word for it. The
same is true for the “resident manager.” Who is this individual? What role do they fill? At this point there is nothing we can examine to
provide any level of comfort that Mr. Stanton or his business are running a program to assist recovering alcoholics as opposed to simply
collecting rent from them. I would expect the City would need to carefully and thoroughly verify this information before granting a dramatic
departure to current zoning controls.
Mr. Stanton also make refence to the fact the house was “originally designed as a covenant.” It should be noted the home has not
functioned as such for several decades and that kind of living arrangement would not be allowed under the current zoning controls. In
addition, when the house functioned as a covenant, it was located across the street from a church and school where the nuns worked. I
also suspect there has been no verification the house actually has 9 legal bedrooms or is up to code in any manner. For what it’s worth,
when I was living in the home across the street with my own family, 101 Oakwood was owned by a sweet elderly woman who resided there
for several decades—never with 4, much less 9 unrelated individuals. Moreover, it borders on absurd that Mr. Stanton would compare 9
unrelated men living together to 9 nuns living in a convent. History has demonstrated that 9 men, related or unrelated, living together, will
lead to problems and is not appropriately situated in a neighborhood comprised of single family homes.
Finally, with regard to Stanton’s representations as to cleanliness and upkeep it is clear these rules are not enforced. The other letters
you’ve received (or a visual inspection of the home) will verify as much.
No Need Exists
The crux of Mr. Stanton’s argument in favor of expanding his home from 4 to 9 men is to state that 9 is required in order to provide the
benefits necessary for a sober home. His own application directly contradicts this point and serves as clear evidence why the variance in not
necessary and his application should be denied. Specifically, Stanton includes letters from unnamed residents (presumably) who speak to
the success of the home and its impact on their own lives. The fact that each of the letters speaks to the “success” of the home (with 4
35
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
people) demonstrates 9 is not required to achieve that result. How therefore could the City possibly approve this request where the
variance is, by Stanton’s own account, not required or necessary to achieve the goals of sober living.
The true explanation behind the request, however, slips out only a paragraph later where Mr. Stanton notes the sober home is a for-profit
business and that it is “highly likely” Stanton will be unable afford to use the property as a sober home if his request is not approved. This is
Mr. Stanton threatening the City. Mr. Stanton’s financial situation is not germane to the application process, nor should it factor into the
decision of the City. The purpose of the ADA and the city zoning laws is not to create a profitable business for Mr. Stanton. This also speaks
to my prior point regarding the need for 9 men. As he admits, the request is not premised upon a concern for the wellbeing or sobriety of
the residents, but instead is for Mr. Stanton’s personal financial gain. The application thus demonstrates precisely what Mr. Stanton is
attempting—exploiting a system designed to help disabled people for his own financial gain. The laws established under the ADA and the
important role sober homes play in our communities cannot be understated. In order to honor these rules and those they seek to protect it
is imperative they are protected from those who seek to abuse them, or, in this case, misuse them for personal financial gain. If that
weren’t enough, Stanton again doesn’t even bother to provide evidence in support of his assertion that he will have to shut the house down
if 9 men aren’t allowed. Again, the City is asked to take his word for it.
Need for the Request
There are plenty of alternatives available to Mr. Stanton if he is truly interested in creating a sober home for 9 men. That he would
purchase a home in a neighborhood zoned as R-1-C, if that were his actual motivation, is difficult to fathom. There are other neighborhoods
in this City and other neighboring Cities where the zoning would allow him to pursue this endeavor without making a dramatic departure
from current zoning controls. Enforcing the current zoning controls does not violate any of Mr. Stanton’s rights which were well-known to
him when he purchased the property. Drastically changing the zoning controls of this neighborhood is not a reasonable request.
Proposed Changes to the Property
I’d also note that despite purchasing a home that was owned and resided in by a single individual for years, and now by 4 (presumably), Mr.
Stanton proposes no changes before having 9 men enter the home. There is simply no way it is possible that a house which served a single
elderly woman can now be utilized by 9 men without significant alterations. This of course would cost money which Mr. Stanton has no
intent of expending to operate a proper sober home. All indications show that Mr. Stanton is deceptively claiming to operate a sober home
in order to generate as much rental income as possible.
Issues for the City
Approving this Request will not result in any additional tax revenue nor any appreciable benefit to the City whatsoever. Based on the
information already submitted by neighbors of 101 Oakwood, it is more likely the city will be required to expend additional resources, time,
and money to this home, particularly so if the residents are more than doubled. This includes police, fire, EMT, attorneys, and any other
number of City personnel and resources. Meanwhile the only person who will benefit, as he openly admits in his submission, is Mr.
Stanton. Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertion of Mr. Stanton, the proposed accommodation absolutely constitutes a fundamental
alteration to the zoning restrictions. How else could this be classified? There are no other properties in the neighborhood with 9 unrelated
individuals. Mr. Stanton and Ninety N Ninety are seeking to operate a commercial enterprise smack dab in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. This is a fundamental change. If the City seeks to protect the goals, values, and principles espoused and codified in the ADA
and support legitimately operated sober homes, it will deny the request of Mr. Stanton and Ninety N Ninety LLC.
Thank you.
Ted
Staff Review:
Staff agrees that constant validation of the disability will need to occur, it is a concern under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7) regarding
the administrative burden of continually validation. It is also a concern that additional residents may require additional
public safety resources overtime.
Staff would like to understand from the applicant the level of programming and supportive services that are provided to
residents that differentiates this living situation from other scenarios under Sec. 1-21(d) subd. (2).
Staff will work with the building department and fire department to verify the home meets city and state building codes and
to verify the current condition of the property.
Staff acknowledges that the application does include references to the success of the program by current residents which
indicates that the current situation may provide an equivalent level of benefit with four (4) residents (Sec. 1-21(d) subd. (3)).
While group homes and the like are allowed within single family residential areas, and similar to residential rentals may
create profit, the city does not consider these uses “commercial.” It is noted however that at this scale, it may be considered
fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations (Section 1-21(d) Subd.(6)).
36
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Scott Stillman
Address: 1607 Preston Lane
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Dear PeggySue Imihy Bean,
My name is Scott Stillman and I live at 1607 Preston Ln. I have a few questions and comments
regarding the Notice of Reasonable Accommodation Request.
First, I’m curious to know what impact do the community comments have in the decision to
approve or deny the request. Who makes the decision to approve or deny?
Most importantly, 9 seems like a lot of people for a suburban home, especially if there are multiple
people with disabilities. Unless there is appropriate space and supervision, I think 9 is too many
people.
• What will be the age range and disabilities of the residents?
• Who supervises the home?
• How do we know that the staffing will be appropriate for that many residents?
• How do we know that the residents are safe, cared for, and have access to leave or
receive visitors? There was an article in the Star Tribune recently that exposed problems
in group homes. How can we be certain that this home won’t be one of those homes?
What has the community said so far?
Sincerely,
Scott Stillman
612-444-9753
Staff Review:
Staff responded to all questions posed by the applicant and notes that the remainder of comments
are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
37
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Jeff Phillips
Address: 250 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Hi PeggySue,
I received the notice in my mail yesterday regarding the request from 101 Oakwood Rd in Interlachen
Park. I do not support this request and do not want nine unrelated individuals living in that home.
Thank you,
Jeff Phillips
250 Interlachen Rd
Staff Review:
Comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
38
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Patrick Johnson
Address: 9 Homedale Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Hello,
Regarding the reasonable accommodation request for 101 Oakwood Road - my feedback is to deny
the request. In my opinion, allowing more than double the current occupancy would not align with
the single-family dwelling nature of the neighborhood. I also understand the owner of the home
operates a for-profit business in relation to the occupants. This goes against the spirit of the
neighborhood as well.
Thank you,
Patrick Johnson
9 Homedale Rd, Hopkins, MN 55343
Staff Review:
While group homes and the like are allowed within single family residential areas, and similar to
residential rentals may create profit, the city does not consider these uses “commercial.” It is noted
however that at this scale, it may be considered fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations
(Section 1-21(d) Subd.(6)).
39
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Anna Dapper
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Ms. Imihy Bean,
As a health care professional who has experience with group homes, I oppose the proposed more
than double increase of disabled adults in the single family home at 101 Oakwood. Considering the
health (communicable diseases), privacy, and overall well-being of disabled persons must be the
fundamental basis in this decision.
I have volunteered for years with MCF Shakopee prison and know the vulnerability of these disabled
adults.
I have not been provided with enough information regarding this request: such as what individuals or
company is asking for this and why or any of their plans to accommodate these individuals. This
information would be very much appreciated.
Thank you,
Anna C. Dapper
Staff Review:
Staff responded to all questions posed by the applicant and notes that the remainder of comments
are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
40
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Scott Stillman
Address: 1607 Preston Lane
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Bean,
Thank you for your response and the additional documents. I did a quick Google search for the LLC and the
owner, and if the other results on Google are about the same person, I am very concerned. If this is the
same Kevin Stanton, his recent history appears to indicate that he has already been running this program
without approval or training. And, the court had concerns about this. I don’t think that a person with this recent
track record should be running a recovery house. With a history of volatility and a disregard for the
requirements to run a program such as this one, it’s just a matter of time until there are problems.
As much as I support the idea of helping people to become sober in a safe neighborhood, I think the density in
such a small facility, and the lack of preparedness by the owner demonstrate to me that this is a disaster in the
making. I hope that you will look deeper into the applicant and if this information is true, deny the
accommodation.
Best regards,
Scott Stillman
In the attached pdf:
https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2021-a20-0211.pdf?ts=1612560334
"Further, Stanton admitted that he runs his sober lodge program in his home without zoning approval, formal
training, licensure, or medical supervision. He also admitted that he has purchased and provided alcohol to an
individual as part of the home detoxification program."
"Additionally, the district court noted that Stanton’s unlicensed “sober lodge” business operations support its
concerns about Stanton’s judgment and ability to safely parent the child."
"the psychological evaluator reported that Stanton’s “history is marked by a violation of common societal
norms"
https://www.hometownsource.com/press_and_news/news/publicsafety/maple-grove-police/article_a76759ac-
6128-5417-8ca4-3bb0c041e919.html
"Kevin Stanton, 58, of Maple Grove was cited for domestic abuse-violation of order for protection on the 12500
block of 85th Place N."
Staff Review:
The referenced PDF is saved in files related this application. Staff notes these comments relate to Sec.
1-21 (d) 8 and 9. Staff assumes the commenter is discussing that the applicant did not obtain a rental
license in 2018, prior to allowing tenants in the property. This this is a consideration for staff under
Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (9).
41
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Christopher Jadin
Address: 216 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
PeggySue,
In no way do I feel an accommodation should be made to allow more than four unrelated individuals
to reside at 101 Oakwood. The owner tried in the past to accomplish the same thing by calling this
residence a “sober house.” This type of housing does not “fit” in Interlachen Park. There is not nearly
enough parking at the residence to accommodate 9 individuals. These individuals should rent their
own space in actual apartment building versus trying to cram into a single residence home.
Why is this being addressed again when it was denied the first time around as a sober house?
To reiterate, I do NOT approve of the reasonable accommodation request.
Thank you!
Christopher Jadin
216 Oakwood Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
Sent from my iPhone
Staff Review:
Staff assumes the commenter is discussing that the applicant did not obtain a rental license in 2018,
prior to allowing tenants in the property. This this is a consideration for staff under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd.
(9).
42
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Joel Van Nurden
Address: 249 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy Bean:
I am writing in opposition to the reasonable accommodation request made by the owner or occupant of 101 Oakwood Road.
While I understand there are privacy concerns, it is impossible for anyone to make an informed decision based on the
limited information provided in the city's notice. We are told only that an "applicant" is requesting an accommodation
(essentially an exemption or variance) from the current zoning code to allow nine individuals with unspecified "disabilit[ies]"
to live in the home together.
There is no information about who the applicant is, what disabilities these nine occupants have, why they all need to live
together in this single-family home, or why any of this is reasonable.
Due to the lack of transparency I took it upon myself to look into this matter a bit further. Here is what I learned:
The owner of 101 Oakwood Road is an inactive LLC by the name of Ninety N Ninety LLC. The manager of that LLC is a Kevin
James Stanton. A quick Google search reveals the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision of Stanton v. Curran, A20-0211
(Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2021). A copy of this opinion is attached.
In reading this decision it is clear that Mr. Stanton is running an unlicensed "sober-lodge" at 101 Oakwood Road. This in itself
is troubling when, as the court opinion details, Mr. Stanton's own family testified about his violent history; his ex-wife
obtained an order for protection against him which he then violated; he was kicked out of his own AA chapter; etc. etc.
In light of all of this, Mr. Stanton's request for permission to cram more than twice as many vulnerable and disabled
individuals into his home (and more than double his income) is not a reasonable accommodation request and should be
denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joel Van Nurden
249 Interlachen Road
Staff Review:
Staff notes that ninety n ninety was administratively closed from February 1, 2022-October 3, 2022,
when it was reinstated after the City pointed out the issue. Comments related to applicant’s history
inform Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
43
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Mark and Pam Van Ert
Address: 221 Oakwood Rd
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
To: PeggySue Imihy Bean
Accommodation Specialist
Fr: Mark and Pam Van Ert
221 Oakwood Road, Hopkins
We are responding to your letter dated June 17, 2022 notifying residents of a request for reasonable accommodation to
expand the occupancy of 101 Oakwood road from 4 to 9 unrelated occupants.
We are asking the city of Hopkins to deny the request for accommodation on several grounds:
• Hopkins interpretation if the fair housing act requirements are incorrect. The fair housing act only states the city
MAY make reasonable accommodations to ensure anyone who is disabled is not being discriminated against by its
zoning rules
32-210 A locality must reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability in the administration of
its zoning regulations
A locality is required to reasonably accommodate disabled persons by modifying its zoning policies, practices and
procedures and may not intentionally discriminate against disabled persons. Dadian v. Village of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831
(7th Cir. 2001). 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) states:
A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary
to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications
would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
The United States Department of Justice explains this requirement as follows:
[Localities] are required to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination
on the basis of disability. Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws, ordinances, and regulations
that adversely impact people with disabilities. For example, it may be a reasonable modification to grant a variance for
zoning requirements and setbacks. In addition, [localities] may consider granting exceptions to the enforcement of
certain laws as a form of reasonable modification. For example, a municipal ordinance banning animals from city health
clinics may need to be modified to allow a blind individual who uses a service animal to bring the animal to a mental
health counseling session.
Since 101 Oakwood already houses 4 individuals with disabilities, there is no current discrimination, and therefore no
changes require remediation.
• The current zoning does not prohibit or degrade the quality of life of disabled individuals, and furthermore,
exampled of applicable rule changes (when needed) focus on access-related items such as setbacks, driveway
locations, and other access-related specifications:
The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section.
Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable is highly fact-specific and determined on a case-by-case basis by balancing the
cost to the locality and the benefit to the disabled person. Dadian, supra. Whether a requested accommodation is necessary requires
a showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively enhance a disabled person’s quality of life by ameliorating the effects
of the disability. Dadian, supra. The focus is on whether the accommodation in the case at hand would be so at odds with the
purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change. Dadian, supra (allowing front driveway access to
elderly landowners’ home, one of whom suffered from osteoporosis and had difficulty walking, was not so at odds with village’s
general prohibition against such driveways and would not cause an unreasonable change to the ordinance because the plaintiffs
44
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
were not requesting a change to the ordinance itself, but application of the hardship exception in their case). 28 C.F.R. §
35.130(b)(7).
• The city is not accounting for the costs of making this change to the community (see the first sentence to the
above citation). By modifying zoning rules and increasing the occupancy of 101 Oakwood, the city is essentially
allowing modifying zoning rules to allow boarding houses and/or multi-family housing in the neighborhood. This
change may have a material impact to home prices in the neighborhood. Before making changes of this impact,
residents of the neighborhood would request that the city hire an expert to perform a study on impacts to the
value of resident's investments in their homes.
• Finally, we assume you are aware that the owner of 101 Oakwood applied for similar zoning exceptions in the past
under different channels, with the intent of starting a group home for individuals with a history of substance use,
abuse and dependence disorders. If the city currently has standards for what they might consider a risk to health
and safety, you should communicate those standards. (see citation below). In addition, your correspondence
mentions nothing about the controls, safety measures, inspections and audits the city will require of the property
owner to ensure the additional resident population poses any risk to the neighborhood.
The term qualified individual with a disability does not include persons who pose “a significant risk to the health or safety of others by
virtue of the disability that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System
Corporation, 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995). It also does not include current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted
for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders. See Joint Statement, supra.
In summary, if you and the city choose to approve this variance for 101 Oakwood, you can expect that this will be the first of
many conversations you have with us and other residents in the neighborhood.
Mark and Pam Van Ert
221 Oakwood Rd
612-723-6818
Staff Review:
Comments related to the standards for making a reasonable accommodation relate to the process the
City uses to make reasonable accommodations, including ensuring a reasonable accommodation is for
individuals meeting the definition of being disabled.
The City also notes the commenter seems to assume the city had already made a decision on the
request when the comment was made, this is not the case.
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kris Ziegler
Address: 109 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
45
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Dear Ms. Imihy Bean,
We have lived at 109 Oakwood Road for 25 years and happen to be the first property south and adjacent to 101 Oakwood
Road. Asking around people have said positive things about you.
You are in a very difficult position by having the sole authority to make the decision to approve or deny Kevin Stanton’s
application at 101. We know there are many residents who have lived in Interlachen Park for decades expressing their
concern and/or opposition to this application, versus a Federal law that at the highest level has nothing but good
intentions. Unfortunately for my wife and I, a decision in favor of this application will significantly affect our ability to quietly
enjoy our home.
We received your notice on Friday afternoon June 17, at that time I had been traveling for 15 of the last 17 days. I was
scheduled to leave the next day and would be gone for 9 out of the next 10 days. I had zero time to deal with this and it
bothered me that I had to take time to think about Kevin Stanton. The timing of his application was tactical (comments due
the week before July 4th) and I was shocked to learn there would be no public debate or city council hearing. When I
phoned you, if I sounded emotional it was due to these factors and I hope you will forgive my assertiveness that day.
Since 1992 we have owned 14 properties, 12 of which were multi-family or small apartment buildings, all managed by us
personally. Hundreds of tenants and leases, dozens of renovation projects, city inspections, licensing and a few
evictions. Every property was well within the affordable definition and most tenants were low income.
When we purchased a property, one of our first actions was to reach out to the neighbors, give them my contact
information and encourage them to reach out to me immediately if they were concerned or affected by the residents in our
building. We had good relationships with neighbors and tenants, and zero violations. Every property was renovated, clean,
safe and a nice home for our residents. So we know very well what it takes to be a professional owner and manager of
rental properties.
This, combined with the fact that our home is less than 20’ from 101 Oakwood makes us uniquely qualified to judge and
inform Hopkins about the quality of Stanton's management style, erratic behavior, blatant disregard for city ordinances,
dishonesty in following the terms of his rental license and generally being an unpleasant person to engage with face to
face.
There are many inconsistencies in Stanton’s application and we strongly oppose any approval of his application based on
his past actions and to our knowledge, it is very disturbing to us that the current rental license has not been revoked,
reviewed or even questioned by the City of Hopkins. I’m concerned he has refused access from authorities to enforce the
terms of his rental license. In Minneapolis, if that happened they would quickly move to enforce their authority and my
license would be revoked.
Up until the last 3 to maybe 6 months, it has always been a revolving door of individuals and Kevin freely admitted to
housing individuals recovering from drug and alcohol use. Once we heard about the approval from Hennepin County to
rubber-stamp a 9-person “Residential Housing Facility” permit, we knew he would be approaching Hopkins with the ADA
request soon. Here are just a few of our experiences living next door to this house. These are all facts,
- A car drove up the 45 degree hill between our homes then over our property onto our driveway without permission,
breaking sprinklers and damaging our yard.
- My wife has been threatened twice, once when she was taking the garbage out to the container that is located on the 101
side of our house.
- A shirtless individual at night was out on the fire escape smoking, he startled my wife when she was taking out the
garbage.
When she looked at him his response was “What are you looking at” then tossed a cigarette in her direction.
How about "sorry I didn’t mean to startle you.”
- The second time was in front of 101 when she went over to ask Kevin a question. Kevin was hostile to her and it was
witnessed by a neighbor and one of the renters.
- Evidence of a fire on the fire escape located on the south side of 101, occupants stand up there and smoke.
- Over the last two years the yard has overgrown in the back. It wasn’t until May when he took the time to clean it up, just
about the time the application was sent in.
- Never cleared the driveway all winter. All the cars parked on the street and the church lot across the street. The
authorities failed to enforce the laws from what I can tell.
46
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
- Recurring tunes coming from a computer all days all hours, last year it was a slot machine, this year it's Wheel of fortune.
- For some reason he decided to plant 4 cedar trees right along our mutual property line which was actually closer to my
house than his.
- They died and he just left them, after months I told him they needed to be removed or replaced. I offered to remove them
and he gave me permission.
- Front door left wide open in December, temperature was well below freezing. After 4 hours I contacted Kevin and asked if
he wanted me to close it for him (have photos).
- I have had 5 to 6 conversations with Kevin over the 3 1/2 years, Ellen has tried as well. It is usually contentious.
My style has always been to not complain to authorities and try and to speak to people directly to solve issues, including
Kevin. From this point forward every problem will be registered with the city, police or fire department. I suspect I will not
be the only one to bring problems to city authorities.
He contradicts his own study on why a larger sober home is more effective than the one he has.
First that study is vague and uses abstract statistical math which I believe you could derive any answer you want based on
your position. What stood out was the statistics that larger homes (7 individuals) have less criminal and aggressive behavior,
length of abstinence was longer, lower substance abuse (31% vs 65%) and lower incarceration rates (3% vs 9%). Also the
“General Crime Index” scores and “Conduct Disorder/Aggression Index” scores are .34 vs .21 and 1.43 vs 1.16 respectively. I
don’t know what this is telling me but I can tell you my scores and most of my neighbors are 0/0. His study on page 8 even
states “It is actually possible in these cases that somewhat smaller settings are more effective”.
The special need is less about serving disabled individuals and more about increasing his rental income unless of course he
chooses to cut the monthly rental proportionately to the increase in residents. Which also brings up a couple of questions;
How is a recovering individual defined as disabled under the ADA?
How will that be proved and verified if this application is approved?
Is the city and the surrounding residents just supposed to take Kevin Stanton’s word or will there be an ongoing
oversight to verify disabled people are actually living there?
Does the city perform a background check on the applicant to determine if they are qualified to run such a facility?
Why 9 people versus 4? Stanton answers that under the Potential Benefit section, “The Sober home is a for-profit
enterprise” and “it is highly likely that the applicant will be unable to afford to use the property as a sober home and would
be unable to continue to provide these services”. Why is his ability to make a profit in this commercial venture a reason for
the city to significantly deviate from current ordinances and codes. He should have known that before he bought the
property.
Some perspective on purchasing rental properties - Stanton with his associate bought the house for $275,000 and quickly
flipped it to another LLC for $375,000 then refinanced it. If I did that based on those numbers, I would have pulled all the
money out that I originally used to acquire the property, thus you own a house with no out of pocket cash. A rough order of
magnitude, if I could generate 1% of the purchase price per month at the time of acquisition, in this case roughly $3000/mo,
$36,000 per year, I could cover the principal, interest, taxes, insurance and expenses with positive cash flow. Giving me a
very reasonable return on investment. Kevin told me in 2019 he collects around $700/resident plus according to the lease,
$20/mo for “Program Fees”. Sounds like 3 years ago he was collecting very close to $3000, I assume it is higher now,
especially if insurance companies or government agencies are covering the resident's rent. Going to 9 residents turns this
into a phenomenal investment.
Complete disregard for city ordinances or surrounding residents by the applicant. On page 3 of his study, a way to get a
neighborhood to accept a sober home was to implement education measures to inform the neighborhood about the
opening of the home. When Kevin bought the home in 2018, his first action was to stuff 11 guys into this house, start
collecting rent and having regular AA meetings which added a lot of traffic. When the local residents started noticing what
was going on and making the city aware of his activity, he backed off after several months of getting away with his
operation. Then when he was refused a rental license on his first application, he just kept renting to 4-6 individuals without
a rental license that entire first year. I may add this was the entire year before Covid started. It concerns me that Hopkins
officials seem not be capable of enforcing their own ordinances.
Potential Impact on surrounding uses - Applicant states no impact
Except for potentially 9 cars parking on the street around the house, not really typical in this neighborhood.
47
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Revolving door of residents, applicant states minimum stay is 6 months. Although is it impossible for us to prove, we have
observed this to be optimistic at best until recently, and at 6 months that means 18 new individuals per year. With the
demonstrated lack of oversight by city authorities to enforce the terms of a simple rental license how can we be assured the
applicant will operate within the terms of his license with 9 individuals. If he goes to 9 people I can only anticipate there will
be more complaints thus consuming more city resources.
Lastly it is my opinion that Kevin Stanton is abusing the laws of the ADA. I think he gives legitimate operators of sober
homes a bad name and sets the intent of the Fair housing act back in the eyes of the general public.
I would assume a professional operator, knowing full well this issue can be inflammatory in a community, would make every
effort to inform and educate all parties affected before moving forward. Kevin Stanton did the exact opposite from day one
and demonstrates he is not a professional.
Ms. Imihy Bean, I ask you to deny this application and put it back in the hands of the city council when Stanton decides to
appeal. Too bad he is an amateur, a professional operator would make your decision much easier. I appreciate you taking
the time to read this and wish you all the best in trying to make a good decision.
Sincerely,
Kris Ziegler
109 Oakwood Road
Staff Review:
Staff agrees that constant validation of the disability will need to occur, it is a concern under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7) regarding
the administrative burden of continually validation. It is also a concern that additional residents may require additional
public safety resources overtime.
Staff notes that review of police calls does not validate resident concerns related to public disturbances however the
incident with the door being left open was recorded, however it is noted that several residents have made comments
regarding interactions of this sort with residents at the subject property. Staff also note that the volume of police calls is also
concerning.
Comments also relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9, related to health, safety, and general welfare and the Applicant’s history.
48
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Ellen Ziegler
Address: 109 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy Bean, Mr. Hanlon & Hopkins City Council Members,
My family and I have lived at 109 Oakwood Road for 25 years, the first 21 of which were very pleasant, peaceful and
amiable.
However, for the last several years, since Kevin Stanton has owned the property next to us at 101 Oakwood Road, I have
been forced to be more alert, on guard and think twice about my safety on a daily basis because the situation next door is so
unpredictable.
The purpose of articulating the following is intended to help you decide to deny Mr. Stanton’s request for a Reasonable
Accommodation which will allow up to 9 unrelated individuals with a disability to live in a home together where four are
currently allowed.
When Kevin Stanton initially bought the property, he immediately filled it up with as many as 11 men and declared he was
running a Sober Home. He did not have a license to run a sober home nor even a rental license at the time but rented rooms
and held weekly AA meetings nevertheless.
There was a sudden flurry of activity at this property, the sum of which had not been seen in the prior two decades.
It wasn’t until neighbors questioned the City of Hopkins about the glaring changes at the 101 property that an application
was filed and Mr. Stanton was granted a rental license for up to 4 unrelated individuals and 5 cars at the property.
I wasn’t happy but accepted the city’s decision.
We have owned rental property for nearly 30 years both locally and in other states, so I know landlords are held to a certain
standard.
At the time, I believed we could rely on the City of Hopkins to keep things in line next door.
First, I tried the friendly, neighborly approach to my new neighbors but quickly learned it would not be reciprocated.
For no apparent reason, I have been leered at, yelled at, had cigarette butts tossed toward me, smoke blown in my face and
other unsolicited, uncomfortable and intimidating confrontations with both the owner and tenants of 101 Oakwood Road.
More than one of these interactions has been witnessed by others.
During one incident, a tenant at the time intervened when he saw and heard Mr. Stanton yelling at me, telling him to “cool
down and go back inside”.
After the City of Hopkins granted the rental license to Mr. Stanton, I have witnessed more than 4 unrelated individuals
staying at this residence in defiance of the license.
I have witnessed more than the 5 cars allowed at the 101 property parked overnight, sometimes seeing cars associated with
101 parked at the church parking lot across the street, again in defiance of the license.
Unfortunately, 101 Oakwood Road has become a revolving door of dozens and dozens of men who are temporary tenants
coming and going at all times of the day and night with no apparent supervision or management whatsoever.
Every few months a new face and/or a new car appears at 101, making me question the length of stay each tenant is signing
a lease for, surely not a 1-year lease as is customary. IF they ARE signing leases, why is there such high turnover?
49
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Kevin, the owner, does not live there. It appears to be his commercial for-profit business operating in a residential
neighborhood and I believe he is taking advantage of the system for his own financial gain.
I have seen the police at 101 more times since Kevin Stanton has owned the property than in the previous 20 years.
I watched an ambulance retrieve a tenant from 101 who had allegedly overdosed.
I have witnessed men from 101 urinating outside on my backyard fence during the day.
I have witnessed 101 tenants loudly arguing with each other.
I have seen broken windows and doors left wide open during the wintertime for hours at a time with no one seemingly
inside.
I have mistakenly received mail for 101 Oakwood Road with several names I do not recognize. I once saw the card carried by
a postal worker with multiple names written down and crossed off for 101. This postal worker told me they didn’t know who
did or who didn’t live there at any given time because it changes so frequently.
Many, many neighbors have told me they no longer allow their children to walk by, ride their bikes past or play at the
playground across the street from 101 alone out of fear of an altercation or harm.
A former neighbor built a substantial addition to their dream house before Kevin Stanton owned 101 but quickly sold after
one of Kevin Stanton’s tenants approached and frightened their young daughter.
The Interlachen Park neighborhood is not accustomed to these restrictions but rather, has been a safe and friendly place to
raise a family.
A 101 tenant drove over our lawn between the houses instead of going up the 101 driveway. His car broke an in-ground
sprinkler head and left deep ruts in our yard and tire tracks on our driveway but neither he nor Kevin Stanton apologized or
explained why the tenant drove up a steep hill of grass instead of up the asphalt driveway.
A few years ago, Mr. Stanton planted 4 evergreen trees very near or possibly on the property line we share. Prior to
planting, there was no evidence of inspection by the utility companies as is the protocol before holes are dug and trees are
planted. His failure to call for this free service demonstrates a lack of regard for simple procedures, not to mention the
safety of his and surrounding properties.
Because they were left unattended, the trees quickly died and became an eyesore. We even tried watering the trees
ourselves but when it was evident they wouldn’t come back to life, we asked Kevin to remove them. After waiting weeks,
possibly months, for him to remove the dead trees, my husband obtained verbal permission from Kevin and removed and
disposed of them himself.
I observed that the walkways and driveway at 101 went unshovelled last winter. Tenants had no access to the garage or
driveway and parked on city streets along the property line all winter.
Only recently this summer has the yard been cleaned up of overgrown weeds and brush. The maintaining of this property
appears inconsistent.
To my knowledge no inspection, citation, fine or repercussion of any kind has been imposed on this owner for his non-
compliance. If true, it concerns me that the City of Hopkins appears not to enforce their own ordinances.
It further concerns me that Mr. Stanton has refused access to the property so authorities can inspect and enforce the terms
of his rental license.
Our 30 years of experience as landlords informs me that this is not acceptable behavior and would otherwise initiate action
by city housing authorities.
The unpredictable number of tenants and cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night already makes this
property a nuisance in an otherwise quiet single-family neighborhood.
50
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Should Kevin Stanton be allowed 9 unrelated tenants, my experience thus far based on observing most of his tenants
historically stay for only a few months, tells me you will potentially be allowing as many as 36 unrelated men to live there
over a 12-month period. Even his stated 6-month rental period means 18 new individuals per year. If allowed, I can only
expect that there will be more altercations and complaints, thereby consuming more city resources.
In the few years that Kevin Stanton has owned 101 Oakwood Road it is my observation that he has not been transparent but
rather adversarial and hostile. He repeatedly and unapologetically continues to act outside the terms of his current
agreement with the City of Hopkins with seemingly little or no repercussion.
With the demonstrated lack of oversight by city authorities to enforce the terms of a simple rental license, I respectfully ask
how we can be assured the applicant will operate within the terms of a new license which would allow as many as 9
unrelated men?
As the daughter of an alcoholic, I am supportive and sympathetic to the mission but do not trust Mr. Stanton’s motivations
for the reasons and examples outlined above.
Thank you for reading this longer than intended email. I appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ellen Ziegler
109 Oakwood Road
Staff Review:
Based on the above account, staff finds that the property currently and under an expansion of tenants may have a negative
impact on the safety and general welfare of the community (Sec. 1-21 (d) subd (8).
Staff agrees that constant validation of the disability will need to occur, it is a concern under Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7) regarding
the administrative burden of continually validation. It is also a concern that additional residents may require additional
public safety resources overtime.
Staff notes that review of police calls does not validate resident concerns related to public disturbances however the
incident with the door being left open was recorded, however it is noted that several residents have made comments
regarding interactions of this sort with residents at the subject property.
Comments also relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9, related to health, safety, and general welfare and the Applicant’s history.
51
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Chuck and Nora Watts
Address: 133 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Good Morning Peggy Sue,
First of all I want to thank you so much for all your efforts for our city and trying to help
us all in regards to the 101 matter. We have lived on the 100 block of Oakwood for
22 years. We even tore down the existing 100 year old house to build and stay here
because we love the neighborhood so much. However, never would we have done
this if we knew that at the end of the block we would have a rental and or sober
house.
We are raising our family here and are really struggling with the fact that there could
be multiple men living at the house at any one time as we have witnessed this as
there are always several cars, Ubers etc at any given day or night.
I know you have received many emails and communications so I will not repeat all of
the same concerns that we have as well. Please just know we are gravely concerned
about this house situation and the owner. He has no intent of being a good neighbor
as we have all tried. We are not in favor of 101 Oakwood house as a rental or sober
living house.
Again, Thank you in advance for your time and assistance in this manner. We really
appreciate it.
Best Rgds,
Chuck and Nora Watts
133 Oakwood Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
Nora_watts@comcast.net
952-426-8598
Staff Review:
Staff finds that comments are related to increases in traffic and parking relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8.
52
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Sara Ferden and Jeremy Schroetter
Address: 201 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Dear PeggySue,
Household 201 Oakwood Rd, Hopkins, MN 55343 (Sara Ferden & Jeremy Schroetter) is NOT in favor
of allowing the request dated Jun 17, 2022 increasing 101 Oakwood's inhabitants to move from 4 to
9.
Our neighborhood is full of children who play throughout the neighborhood, and their safety is
paramount.
Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you, Sara
Staff Review:
Staff finds that comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
53
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Dorothy Swanberg
Address: 126 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
To Ms. Imihy Bean, Patrick Hanlon, and Hopkins City Council Members:
I am writing in response to the Notice of Reasonable Accommodation Request that was mailed to me June 17, 2022. I believe
that the request is not at all reasonable.
I have not been in 101 Oakwood Rd recently, but I am guessing that a place that was built to accommodate nuns decades ago
would not meet current standards for group living facilities for people with disabilities. I hope that the Accommodation Specialist
will have the house inspected and approved by qualified experts. This is for the health and safety of the people living in the
facility as well as for the neighbors. If the house does not meet these standards, the request for accommodation should be
denied.
I refer you to neighbor [Name of Neighbor redacted as the Neighbor requested to be anonymous and the Neighbor’s comments
were excluded from the Record as discriminatory][] questions on neighborhood safety in his letter to Ms. Imihy Bean, Mayor
Hanlon, and the city council. Does Mr. Stanton have a documented, transparent process for seeking appropriate tenants and
performing background checks? Can he produce records of previous tenants, including evidence of background checks for
current and past residents? If he cannot show evidence of appropriate business practices and skills, his request for
accommodation should be denied.
I have heard that Kevin Stanton is not living in the house. I hope that the facility will have a manager with expertise in law,
medicine, and human relations so that the facility will provide good care for persons with disabilities. I am not an expert in
medical law, but if I had a loved one living in such a facility, I would want trained medical people on the premises at all times. Has
Mr. Stanton made plans for such a manager?
As neighbor [Name of Neighbor redacted as the Neighbor requested to be anonymous and the Neighbor’s comments were
excluded from the Record as discriminatory] asked in his letter, “What programming advantages does Mr. Stanton purport to
offer that would make expansion of this program more appropriate than expansion or creation of another program elsewhere in a
more appropriate facility?” The more I think about it, the more I realize that expecting a safe house with appropriate medical care
and supervision at 101 Oakwood Rd is a vain hope.
Please deny Mr. Stanton’s request for reasonable accommodation to allow nine unrelated individuals to live at 101 Oakwood
Rd.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Swanberg
126 Oakwood Rd
Staff Review:
Staff notes the concerns related to the condition of the home and will review issues related to fire
and building code with appropriate city staff.
Related to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (2), the commenter provides questions staff would like to propose to
the applicant regarding the services that would provide a benefit to those receiving the reasonable
accommodation.
Additionally, the portions of the redacted neighbor’s comments that are cited in this comment were
not related to the portion of the redacted neighbor’s comments staff determined to be
discriminatory.
54
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
55
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Brenda Beukelman
Address: 143 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
56
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
I am the resident at 143 Oakwood Road and am concerned about the request made at 101
Oakwood for a reasonable accommodation be made in the number of non-relative residents
and reclassification of the property from single family to a sober-living home for 9
individuals with an inexperienced sober home provider.
The current owner of 101 Oakwood has not demonstrated any reasonable ability to provide a
quality, successful environment for more than 4 individuals to maintain sobriety. What would
constitute upgrades or therapies he has implemented to create that success? Placing nine
adults into this typical sized property isn't logical and appears to be only a financial benefit to
the owner.
There are currently more than 2 cars parked on the street related to this property. It is highly
unlikely with 9 occupants there will be a maximum of two cars.
I am supportive of transitional and supportive housing and would support it in our
neighborhood if I believed it was a sincere and quality based program. There are
professionally run organizations that have a proven track record that could be evaluated
prior to approving a license. Looking at his application, saying he "will" provide is much
different than "has done" or "currently can"provide". The cart seems to be in front of the
horse in his request for approval.
Please deny his request and require the owner to provide a more robust and quality product
that is reflective of the values and quality reflective of Hopkins.
Staff Review:
Related to Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (2), the commenter provides questions staff would like to propose to
the applicant regarding the services that would provide a benefit to those receiving the reasonable
accommodation.
Other comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Andrew Engebretson
Address: 262 Ashley Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
57
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Comments:
Hello, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed request located at 101 Oakwood Road. The surrounding area is a location our family frequents with 3 children under 5 years old. A quick google search on the officers of the LLC at this location revealed legal opinions citing concerns over the the ability to deal with the day to day demands of caring for a young child. It goes on to cite disregard for previous zoning restrictions which in my opinion does not make the request suitable for a family neighborhood.
I would ask the city to reject this request based on prior precedent and the cited character issues.
Andrew Engebretson 262 Ashley Road
--
Andrew E. Engebretson
(952) 818-4636
Staff Review:
Staff finds that the comments relate generally to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
58
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Richard Eiss
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
To whom it may concern,
My wife and I have been a living in Interlachen park sense 1996, one of the reasons we chose this
location is because of the reputation it has as being a very safe and friendly neighborhood, a great
place to raise a family. Over the last 26 years we have raised our children and watched others do the
same all enjoying everything it has to offer. I do not believe that allowing a independently owned half
way house into the neighborhood for someone’s personal financial gain would take away the safe and
family orientated location it has come to be known for. Please take into consideration the volume of
people that will be using it for a temporary residency, most using the occupancy will only be using it
for a cheep place to sleep until they have a better option not having any regards for the great
surroundings we have all worked so hard at.
Thanks
Rich Eiss
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
59
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Jodie & Nate Schmidt
Address: 209 Holly Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms Imihy Bean,
We ask that the City of Hopkins deny the request for accommodation and avoid modifying or waiving rules relating to
zoning, land use, or any other rules that would result in the allowance of more than the limit of 4 unrelated individuals at the
single-family property located at 101 Oakwood Road. Our concerns relating to this request include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1. Parking: Safety, Trash and Debris
At present, up to 4 unrelated individuals are legally allowed to live at the property; however, with this current
number of residents there are between 2 and 4 cars parked on the street at various times throughout the day and
the year. It is doubtful that the property can accommodate the increased number of cars and traffic associated
with a significant increase in the number of residents themselves (more than double) and the residents’ visitors,
even if residents were to clear and/or use the existing tuck under garage and driveway.
This past winter, the driveway at this property was never cleared of snow and the cars remained parked on the
street, resulting in city snow plows having to navigate around the parked cars. As a result, Boyce Street was not
fully cleared of snow outside of the property and piles of snow and related ice remained along the curb area and in
the street. During one of our short-lived Minnesota thaws, an area of Boyce Street between Oakwood and
Interlachen experienced significant localized flooding due to piles of snow and ice blocking access to storm drains.
We reached out to the Hopkins Public Works Department to notify them of the situation and they addressed it by
clearing channels in the ice through which the water could reach the storm drains. This additional effort on the
City’s part would not have been necessary if cars associated with this property were not consistently parked on the
street. Additional cars related to an increase in number of residents and their visitors at this property will
compound the issue.
The property is located at an intersection where there is a playground with play equipment and a basketball hoop.
Bus companies also use the intersection near the home for neighborhood bus stops. Children cross this
intersection year-round to get to the playground and bus stops. With an increased level of traffic coming/going at
the property and number of cars parked on the street around which buses, delivery vehicles, snow plows and cars
will need to maneuver, there is concern for the safety of the neighborhood children and other residents who walk
and bike in this area of the neighborhood.
With the current number of residents and their cars at the property there is often trash and other debris in the
street near the parked cars. On Monday, 6/27/2022, we picked up trash on the 100 block of Oakwood Road
consisting of a cigarette butt and a razor blade (thankfully it was still in its cardboard sleeve); however, in the past
we have observed and/or picked up cigarette butts, car air fresheners, broken pens, paper straw wrappers, and
other miscellaneous debris in the area directly outside the property. With the recently completed street project
with curbs and gutters, rainwater and snow melt now have a clear and unobstructed path to the storm sewers
(when they aren’t blocked by snow and ice), easily carrying such trash and debris from the streets to our local
waterways. The property is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, resulting in this trash and
debris being washed down the storm sewers and directly polluting our waterways. This water pollution negatively
impacts residents far beyond the immediate Interlachen Park neighborhood and City of Hopkins.
An exception to City policy to allow for additional cars to be parked on the street outside the property should not
be made to maintain the safety of our children and other pedestrians/bikers and to help preserve and protect our
waterways.
2. Zoning Change Would Set Dangerous Precedent
The property at 101 Oakwood Road is currently owned by a limited liability corporation and operated as a
business. If the City were to accommodate the property owner’s request by modifying or waiving its rules relating
to zoning it would set a dangerous precedent. What will prevent another business entity from purchasing a single-
60
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
family home within the City and converting it to lodge up to 9 unrelated individuals, using this property as
precedent?
This dangerous precedent could potentially price many young families and individuals out of the single-family
home market in Hopkins if they were to be in competition with investor groups/businesses such as this property
owner when putting in an offer on a home. Business entities have more financial backing from their multiple
investors and could outbid individuals in the home buying process and continue to contest the City’s zoning, land
use, or other rules by hiring lawyers to argue their cases to meet their business needs, increase their number of
rental units on the property, and thereby increasing the business’ revenues and profits.
We fear that the fabric of our community will erode with home buyers having to move outside of Hopkins to be
able to afford a single-family home in which to raise their families. Further, when businesses are done using the
properties and move to sell them, future buyers may need to invest additional money to modify the property and
convert it back to a more useable single-family home, thereby reducing its value and purchase appeal.
3. Rezoning Conflicts With 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Threatens Single-Family Homes
Changing zoning of single-family properties is not in line with the recently updated City of Hopkins 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The 4th goal of the City of Hopkins Comprehensive Plan is to “Maintain Quality, Safety and
Character of Existing Housing Stock.” Part of this goal is the policy to “Protect single-family residential areas from
encroachment of incompatible uses and promote removal of existing incompatible uses.”
In reviewing Table B3.2 – Housing Types in Hopkins, 2018 from Appendix B3: Housing of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, the most prevalent housing type in Hopkins is multi-family dwellings with 5 or more units (56.4%), followed
by single-family detached homes (29.2%). When additional multi-family dwelling development is completed along
the Blake Road corridor, the percentage of single-family homes in Hopkins will decrease as a percentage of the
city’s total housing type since the construction of any new single-family home would likely only occur on an
individual basis as existing single-family homes are torn down.
According to the Minneapolis/St Paul Business Journal article dated June 20, 2022 and titled “Work Anticipated to
Start in Fall on Hopkins Redevelopment Next to Future Light Rail Station,” the former cold storage location at 325
Blake Road has project plans proposing up to 760 additional non-single-family units. In addition, a separate 250
non-single-family unit development is planned nearby at the Excelsior Boulevard location where the former strip
mall and Goodwill store were located.
To be clear, we are not opposed to development of additional housing units in Hopkins, rather we are opposed to
the conversion or rezoning of the City’s limited single-family homes. The City of Hopkins provides several
opportunities for individuals to reside in multi-family units and developers are in the process of adding over 1,000
additional units. Therefore, there should be no need to change the existing zoning of the City’s limited stock of
single-family homes in order to accommodate up to 9 unrelated individuals and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
obligates the City of Hopkins to protect the single-family homes within its residential neighborhoods.
Given the current limited number of single-family homes in Hopkins (and taking into consideration the inevitable
decreased percentage of single-family homes as a total of all dwelling units in Hopkins when recent developments
are completed), removing even one single-family home from the population through rezoning will detract from the
City’s diversity of housing. Is it even lawful for the City to change the zoning of a property if that zoning change
were to conflict directly with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan as described above? The City needs to continue
to work towards protecting the existing single-family homes and avoid rezoning of these properties.
According to the Federal Fair Housing Act, “if a requested modification imposes an undue financial or
administrative burden on a local government, or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local
government’s land use and zoning scheme, it is not a ‘reasonable’ accommodation”
(https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1#disability). If the City of Hopkins were to disregard its goals as laid
out in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property to accommodate this request, it would result in a
permanent zoning change that would fundamentally alter the City’s zoning scheme, thereby making this request
unreasonable. The City of Hopkins should therefore keep the current zoning for the property at 101 Oakwood
Road as R-1C and deny the request to accommodate in the application of zoning for 9 unrelated individuals to live
in a home where 4 would otherwise be allowed.
61
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Respectfully,
Jodie & Nate Schmidt
209 Holly Rd
Staff Review:
The above comment offer staff concern regarding increased services (public works calls) that were
required in connection with the property (Sec. 1-21 (d) subd. (7)).
The proposed application does not set a precedent for this type of housing and is not a rezoning.
Concerns in this comment are unrelated to the application proposed.
62
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Liza Etienne
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
I am 100% in agreement with Steve and am against the reasonable accommodations for more
residents at 101 oakwood. I would also like to propose that 101 oakwood not be allowed to have the
rotating slots for 4 residents that they currently have. How would we as a community petition for
that?
Why would I propose going beyond denying the reasonable request and also asking to revoke their
current ability to have 4 residents?
Our neighbors have been yelled at, lashed out at and have even witnessed 101 oakwood resident
pulling out his penis to pee on their fences!!! Apologies for being so graphic, but you can’t unsee
that!
My mother also lives with us and loves to walk the neighborhood to get exercise and chat with the
neighbors. She’s in her 80s and not as steady on her feet. All it would take is for a belligerent resident
to startle her and she’d topple over and be in the ER.
With the strongest conviction, I too am strongly against not only the expansion but also the current
ability for 101 oakwood to have a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood.
Liza Etienne
Staff Review:
A word document attached to this email is saved with the comments.
While police records do not indicate calls which show negative interactions with the tenants at the
subject property, staff notes this is another comment indicating these interactions have occurred.
Staff does not the volume of calls is concerning.
63
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Jon Pederson
Address: 240 Interlachen Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Hello,
I'm emailing in response to the 101 Oakwood Road accommodation for 9 unrelated tenants to live in
a single family dwelling. I live at 240 Interlachen Road in Interlachen Park and wanted to voice my
concerns for this request. Asking for 9 unrelated people to live together is far too many people. This
request is asking to more than double the normal code of 4 individuals. This to me is a very
unreasonable accommodation request. I appreciate your time and thought through this process.
--
Thank you,
Jon Pederson
763.486.2342
Staff Review:
Staff find comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
64
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Mike McDonnell
Address: 109 Holly Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. PeggySue Imihy Bean,
My name is Mike McDonnell and I live at 109 Holly Road. My wife and I have lived in the Interlachen Park
neighborhood for almost 30 years. As a tenured resident, I have a deep appreciation for, and a strong
commitment to, our wonderful neighborhood.
I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to the reasonable accommodation request submitted
concerning 101 Oakwood Road.
Simply put, a request to go from 4 unrelated residents to 9 is unreasonable on its face. When the zoning Code
was enacted, it recognized the importance of fostering strong family neighborhoods for the city. The Code
established a clear, narrow exception for “not more than 4 [unrelated] persons.” If this flawed request were
granted, it would more than double the scope of the exception — and more than double the density of the
occupation at that residence. This would result in more than two times the activity, traffic, delivery truck stops,
Uber stops, congestion, noise, parking pressure, safety issues and the other consequences of living in a
neighborhood. There is nothing reasonable about that.
And the intended use by these residents is inherently short-term and transitory. They would be continually
turning over. They would lack the long-term commitment, dedication and stability that are the bedrock of the
Interlachen Park community, where long-term neighbors have worked together to build a safe, supportive and
welcoming community.
Granting with request would be very destabilizing to one of Hopkins' wonderful neighborhoods. I urge you to
reject this application.
Thank you for carefully considering my input and that of all others responding to your notice. We appreciate all
of your efforts working on these zoning matters for our city.
Of course, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mike McDonnell
Staff Review:
Comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance. Staff notes the comments relate to Sec. 1-
21 (d) 6, 8, and 9 because relates to whether there is a fundamental shift in the city’s policies, and
health, safety, and general welfare.
65
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kris Collins
Address: 6 Maple Hill Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Thanks, here is what I would like to say on record:
6 Maple Hill Road - I commend the homeowner’s efforts to provide a place to rehabilitate and live for
those that suffer from a disability. Unfortunately this homeowner has not demonstrated a track
record of providing this service while complying with state/city codes and guidelines. I would ask that
the city look at how the property is being managed, monitored and maintained to date as well as
considering the volumes of feedback from those of us that live in the neighborhood. Once this
information is understood, please assess the safety of this residence in its current state (4 non family
residents) and also the request for the capacity to be increased to 9.
Thank you,
Kris Collins
Another email was sent 6/30/2022:
Is there a place to note I am not supportive of the expansion? I guess I didn’t say that now… sorry and
thanks!
Staff Review:
The comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
66
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Kris Ziegler
Address: 109 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 07/01/2022
Comments:
Ms Imihy Bean,
Just a quick follow up email.
Attached are just a few representative photos of 101 I have collected over the years. Up until recently I really don’t look for problems, it’s
only when they are so blatantly obvious that I take the time to take a picture. Unfortunately I have lots of pictures.
Now I’m watching all the time and we plan to keep the city informed of suspected issues or violations.
Lots of cars parked all year on the street, ignoring snow rules. Ask your plow drivers, they plow around them all the time.
Fire escape where we see an occasional smoker, it is directly above where our garbage containers are located. Also the place where my
wife was rudely startled by a shirtless, tattoo covered individual, who tossed a butt towards her and said “What are you looking at?”…..Nice
neighbor.
Same fire escape that has direct evidence of a fire that went long enough to burn up the outside siding. I noticed this last October, you
would think he would at least try to repair or cover this up.
Winter photo was taken on Dec 27. Weather on that day started around 30 then plummeted as the day progressed. After about 4 hours I
contacted Stanton via text telling him the door is wide open, would he like me to close it. He gave me permission and I did the neighborly
thing.
This house has a couple of window AC units, I don’t think there is central air. The photo is just an example of tenants leaving doors and
windows wide open during the summer. It is really easy to tell how many individuals are living in the house just by looking at windows open
and lights on in the 8 bedrooms upstairs. Impossible to prove but just observing windows, the cars and different individuals, it often
appears to be more than 4 occupants.
Two days ago Stanton now appears to be staying there. He has not lived there since very early 2019. He freely told me he would not live
there after I first asked him about all the people living in the house, just after his purchase in 2018. He told me he was putting 11 people in
at that time.
My feeling is, his actions of cleaning up the overgrown yard and moving in are just for show. As soon as his reasonable accommodation is
approved, he will be gone and nothing more than the occasion visitor to collect rent or cut the grass. Stanton is an amateur, acting at every
level like the bully many of us have seen, and is exactly the kind of person you DO NOT want operating a 9 man “Residential Housing
Facility” in the city of Hopkins.
Kris Ziegler
Staff Review:
These comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9 because they are about the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents, neighborhood and
67
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Anne VanderVoste
Address: 119 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 07/04/2022
Comments:
Hello,
I am writing in response to the notice I received regarding a request by Kevin Stanton for a Reasonable Accommodation at 101 Oakwood
Road. I live at 119 Oakwood Road, one house away from 101.
I believe the reasonable accommodation request should be denied. Our block and the surrounding area have been, and continue to be,
negatively impacted by Mr. Stanton's rental/sober living property and the tenants living there.
My concerns:
Mr. Stanton does not live at the property and there is no on premise oversight of the tenants or the physical property.
Mr. Stanton has not engaged the neighborhood or immediate neighbors with transparency regarding the purpose or programming of his
property. Are occupants actually receiving sober home support - or is this just a business venture that financially benefits Mr. Stanton?
We are unaware if requirements regarding background checks, length of stay, property maintenance, programming, inspections, etc. are
being met. From my observations, it appears that many of these requirements have been disregarded.
The four (and sometimes more) tenants are constantly changing resulting in a "revolving door" of unknown occupants. Given this concern,
increasing the occupancy rate to nine will only exacerbate the problem. I strongly oppose increasing the occupancy to nine.
The tenants I have said hello to or smiled at as I walk by have not reciprocated and seem to have no interest in becoming a part of this
community.
We have lived in our home for 30 years. 101 Oakwood sits on a busy corner across from a playground and church. This little playground and
the adjacent parking lot have always been a gathering spot for neighborhood children. On any given day there would be pick-up kickball
and basketball games, little ones practicing riding their bikes without training wheels and eager entrepreneurs selling lemonade to friendly
neighbors. Sadly, those small moments of childhood independence have faded with the uncertainties at 101. Given the lack of transparency,
no on premise oversight, multiple cars parked or coming and going at all times of the day creating hazards for young bike riders, and
uncomfortable interactions with constantly changing tenants it is no wonder parents are reluctant to allow their children to play on this
corner.
There are nine factors outlined in making decisions regarding reasonable accommodations. Factor number eight:
"Whether the requested accommodation is likely to have any negative impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare of
members of the community."
specifically address the concerns of the neighbors and the community. The property at 101 Oakwood Road has already
negatively impacted this neighborhood, and increasing the occupancy rate to nine will further erode the "health, safety
and general welfare of members of the community." Given the concerns I have expressed and the overwhelming concern
you have received from neighbors, I believe the City of Hopkins' only decision can be to support our neighborhood and
deny Mr. Stanton his request for a Reasonable Accommodation.
Thank you,
Anne VanderVorste
119 Oakwood Road
Staff Review:
Staff finds that these comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
68
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Renee Kessler
Address: Not Provided
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/25/2022
Comments:
Dear Mr. Mornson,
Below was a notice I observed flapping on a telephone pole in Interlachen Park. My comments are
past the June 30 deadline, however, still should be read and considered. Please pass my letter along
to the "Accommodation Specialist" which I could not locate in the directory to Hopkins.
Possibly, my address was outside the legal requirement for formal notification. I know residents have
been upset over and over again for the lack of communication by the City on matters within, nearby
and outside our boundaries. As a matter of example, I just received formal notification on 2 proposed
storage sheds from Blake School but did not receive formal notification for the structure they are
erecting off Blake Road near the entrance. All these matters seem to be near my residence on Ashley
Road.
Of particular importance, it would seem the commercial rental business proposed below directly
impacts the entire Interlachen Park neighborhood and all residents should have been formally
notified. Otherwise, you risk the brunt of upset residents hearing about these matters through
informal channels on Nextdoor or elsewhere. You can expect this matter to be an issue for neighbors.
Thank-you, Renee Kessler
Staff Review:
A photo and PDF attached to this email are saved in the files related to this application.
Staff finds the comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
69
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Ellen Ziegler
Address: 109 Oakwood Road
☒Email
☐Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 07/01/2022
Comments:
Good afternoon Ms. Imihy Bean,
Attached you’ll find two photos showing the resulting damage to our yard and driveway caused by a
tenant of 101 Oakwood Road.
I referred to this incident in my original email to you last week regarding the Special Accommodation
Request by 101 Oakwood Road but didn’t realize I had these photos until today.
You can clearly see deep tire tracks in the grass as the car drove up the steep hill and then over our
driveway.
Let me know if you would like additional information or have any questions.
Best,
Ellen Ziegler
109 Oakwood Road
Staff Review:
Photos attached to this email are saved with the files related to this application.
Staff notes the damage made allegedly by 101 Oakwood Road tenants.
70
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: David Smith
Address: 130 Holly Road
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided:
Comments:
Good afternoon. I'm pushing the time limit I guess a little bit with the response to the Notice of Reasonable Accommodation
on the, ummmm, 101 Oakwood Road, ahh group home, …. I guess request to the City. I'm David Smith. I live at 130 Holly
Road and have been here for decades. My wife and I (Stacy) have both worked as social workers and worked with disabled
and ahh mostly adults and have some concerns about the number of people that are requested as the occupants of this
house. Ahhh. We have a pretty large house ourselves and have difficulty seeing that the former Allen house is large enough
to accommodate and in the context of the neighborhood adjacent to the church would have sufficient room for parking and
for, I assume, a person's help that would be assisting them and such. The church parking lots are heavily used on Sundays as
other days there will possibly be children in the school if that comes to pass, it's been filled up off and on, for the time being
anyway, so nine unrelated adults plus I assume some persons who would be overseeing and supervising, would be
substantially more persons living in what is a relatively small property. I assume that that house is possibly no largerr than
2,000 SF, so we would be happy to hear a proposal that would provide fewer occupants, five maybe six, would be you know
reasonable accommodation, but we feel that having nine plus any oversight, it is just too large a proposal and not in keeping
with this particular neighborhood as former social workers, we have no problem with this type of proposal but it needs to be
scaled down in order to meet I think reasonable requirements for a neighborhood of this sort. We'd really appreciate a
callback if you want to discuss this more, but we feel right now with the information that has been provided that we do not
feel that nine unrelated adults can be accommodated at this particular location. I'm David Smith, I live at 130 Holly Road, my
phone number is [redacted], and we'd certainly appreciate a callback regarding....end of message.
Staff Review:
Staff finds the comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
71
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Marie Gallagher
Address: 214 Hawthorne Road
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
PeggySue, Ms. Bean, I'm calling as a resident of Interlachen Park because I received the letter the Notice of Reasonable
Accommodation Request. I have read the materials but I also was forwarded a copy of the Judgment in the Divorce trial. It
appears to me that this man, umm Mr. Stanton, is really not qualified to run a sober house if temperment is any indication. I
don't know about the legal ramifications of his qualifications, but they do not seem, to me, to be responsible enough to
house any one who is vulnerable, with "disabilities" as to alcoholism and drugs. I don't know if this meets the criteria that
you are looking for, but the letter said to call with input, and that is my input - that I would not be in favor of putting his
sober house number to nine residents, and even wondering if he should have four residents in is control. Thank you very
much.
Staff Review:
Staff finds these comments relate to Sec. 1-21 (d) 8 and 9.
72
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Robert Anderson
Address: 262 Oakwood Road
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
Hello, this is Robert Anderson and I'm calling about the Notice of Reasonable Accommodation Request. I am at 262
Oakwood Road in Interlachen Park, and I wanted to have a conversation with somebody. I strongly oppose the RAR. We're
talking about somebody that didn't live in the house, grow up on the house, acquire a disability in the house. They acquired
this house for the sole purpose of renting it out to multiple people which is in clear violation of how it's zoned. Umm, so
there is no reason that the accommodation should be granted, in my opinion, and I strongly oppose it. Please give me a call
back at [removed]. Once again it is Robert Anderson.
Staff Review:
Staff finds the comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
73
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Barbie Small
Address: Not Provided
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
Good morning. Yes, this is Barbie Small, and I'm calling to let you know my opinion of the accommodation they are asking
for to put a nine-man facility to put in the Interlachen neighborhood. I am totally against that That sounds to me like a
treatment facility. It's going to be putting too many people in one house. I don't see a need for that. This is not a
commercial area. This is a neighborhood of people with families and we don't need that kind of accommodation in this
neighborhood. If you want to speak to me about it, feel free to give me a call. My phone number is [removed]. Thank you
very much. I appreciate you.....call ended.
Staff Review:
Staff finds the comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
74
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Dick Anderson
Address: Not Provided
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
Good morning. This message is for PeggySue. I'm calling in regards to the Accommodation Request at 101 Oakwood Road in
Hopkins. Ummm, number one comment, I think 9 individuals in any individual house and are unrelated is quite too many.
That's my first opinion. Number two, I'm sure, I hope, that the City or whoever is responsible does a complete background
check on any of the principals involved in putting this together, and then who is responsible for the background checks of
the applicants going in there, because I do believe that the handicap involved is alcoholism. And, anyway, ummm if you
want to give me a should at [removed], I'd appreciate it. My name is Dick Anderson.
Staff Review:
Staff finds comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
75
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Lisa King
Address: Not Provided
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
Hi PeggySue, this message is from Lisa King, and I'm calling about the RAR for 101 Oakwood Road in Hopkins, and I'm calling
to oppose it. The person that owns the house doesn't even live in the neighborhood, and this is a very residential
neighborhood, and he's not here and renting it out, its a commercial property then. This is a neighborhood with tons of
kids running around, parents walking their dogs, grandparents walking the streets as well, very pedestrian, very community-
based, and then what they are doing with that property does not fit in with the neighborhood. There's boarded up
windows, there's drunk people peeing on the fences, yelling at neighbors, that's just not what this neighborhood is about.
And we would love for not only to see them not get the approval but also get what they currently have fixed, you know to
make sure that they are following in reducing the police calls and incidences to the, that our neighbors don't feel threatened
by their tenants, and so that's what we are hoping that we can accomplish here, to not only address what they are asking for
but to also fix what is currently broken with that property. So my number is [removed].
Staff Review:
While police records do not indicate calls which show negative interactions with the tenants at the
subject property, staff notes this is another comment indicating these interactions have occurred.
76
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Judy Stitzel
Address: Not Provided
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/25/2022
Comments:
My name is Judy Stitzel, and my number is 952-935-3469, and I'm calling about the letter I received about the house that is
going to put 9 individuals into it with disabilities. I don't know if this is a vote or what it is, but I just want my opinion heard,
is that is the absolute worst place that you could put a place like that. This is a family neighborhood with lots and lots of
kids, and to put a house like that right in the middle, right across from the church, is the wrong idea. I don't know how it
even got this far. This was the first I heard of it, but if you have any questions, I left my number, but I think that should have
never happened.
Staff Review:
Staff finds comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
77
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Alysha McConnell
Address: 35 Ashley Road
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
Hi, my name is Alysha McConnell and I live at 35 Ashley Road in Interlachen Park, and I am calling in regards to a Notice of
RAR for 101 Oakwood Road. I do have several concerns. I don't know if it's easier to just call me back. If you want to, I can
be reached at [removed]. If I get a chance, I will also email you. You know, I don't think that this is OK. I mean there's a
rule that only 4 unrelated people, and this is more than double that, the owner doesn't even live in the house, the house
isn't equipped for people with disabilities. Let's be honest, that's just a loophole he found. He's been denied this request in
the past, and you know, he just found another loophole and say that they have disabilities, when really it's rehabilitation and
I just don't think that a family neighborhood is the right place spot for that to happen. So again, there's a reason why they
say no more than 4 unrelated people can be in a house that's zoned this way and I don't think this should be an exception.
So, let me know what else I need to do and feel very strongly about this, and it's really rather upsetting. So, call me back if
you have any questions. I'll try you again on Monday, I see you're out for the weekend, and/or I'll send you an email where
you can get ahold of me.
Staff Review:
Staff finds comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
78
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Lisa Akin
Address: Not Provided
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: //2022
Comments:
Hi PeggySue, this is Lisa Akin. I was calling about the Notice that you sent out in the mail about the Notice to RAR for 101
Oakwood Road in Hopkins, and you said that if we wanted to provide our input on the requestor or an email to give you a
call. Yes, we'd love to put in our input. We are not in favor of allowing this. We, this is a residential area, of single family
homes. We'd love to keep it that way, and so we are not in favor of this RAR. My phone number is [removed].
Staff Review:
Staff finds comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
79
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: David Smith
Address: 130 Holly Road
☐Email
☒Voicemail
☐Mail
Date Comment Provided: 0//2022
Comments:
I just have the RAR for nine adults living at the former Allen house at 101 Oakwood Road and feel that the number of adults
and the accommodations that will need to be made for them is excessive. We've discussed this as former social workers and
group home accommodators and our recommendation would be to scale it back to five or six individuals. I'd appreciate a
follow-up to this call.
Staff Review:
Staff finds comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
80
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
81
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Requested to be Anonymous
Address: Requested to be Anonymous
Email
Voicemail
Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/29/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Imihy:
Good Morning!
I am writing this email to politely yet strongly voice my opposition to the reasonable
accommodation request by the owner of 101 Oakwood Road.
The owner wants to have up to 9 unrelated individuals with a disability live at 101 Oakwood Road.
Since the exact disability is not defined in the letter you wrote, it is challenging to have a full
understanding of this request. Nevertheless, this property is not equipped to accommodate 9
individuals with a disability. There are no elevators, and the bedrooms are very small. There are not
enough parking spots for this many people.
I do not believe the owner even lives at this residence. Who monitors the renters who live there now?
I think this is just a "money grab" opportunity by the owner, who has no ties to the neighborhood and
has not made much of an effort to reach out to people who actually live in Interlachen Park.
There are about 300 homes in this neighborhood, and many dozens of children who live and play
here, including at the park right across the street from 101 Oakwood Road. Their safety is a top
priority for us, and having more renters who have no ties to the community is a major safety concern
to me and many other neighbors.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. Please let me know if you have any questions.
(Redacted based on request to be anonymous)
Staff Review:
Staff responded to all questions posed by the applicant and notes that the remainder of comments
are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
82
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: John and Marcia Diracles
Address: 155 Homedale Road
Email
Voicemail
Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Dear Ms. Bean, Mayor Hanlon, Ms. Elverum, and Hopkins City Council Members,
In the past couple of days, it has been brought to our attention that there is an unreasonable
request being made by Mr. Kevin Stanton, the owner of the 101 Oakwood Road property, to
enlarge it from being a residence for four UNRELATED adult males in recovery to nine
residents of the same make up. We are completely opposed to this unreasonable request
and insist that it is not honored.
Our neighbors, who are very versed in this topic, have written to you with the numerous,
solid, and legal reasons this request should be denied. We fully support our neighbors' sound
reasons for denial for any extension to the population of the residence.
We have lived at 155 Homedale Road since 1986. While there have been issues of concern in
the past regarding changes to the environment surrounding this neighborhood, this is by far
the most egregious and unreasonable request for change that we have ever seen.
We urge you to deny the unreasonable request of Mr. Kevin Stanton. An enlarged home for
UNRELATED adults is NOT appropriate in this neighborhood of families and older citizens
attempting to age in homes they have loved and maintained for decades.
Respectfully,
John and Marcia Diracles
Staff Review:
Staff find comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance.
83
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Requested to Be Anonymous
Address: Requested to Be Anonymous
Email
Voicemail
Mail
Date Comment Provided: 06/30/2022
Comments:
Hello,
We received a letter in the mail regarding 101 Oakwood Road, Hopkins. A request was made by the
applicant to allow nine unrelated individuals with a disability where four would be allowed.
First, this residence is in a single-family dwelling located in R-1C. The owner was aware of this when
the property was purchased. Shortly after closing on the property, this individual requested an
accommodation to rent to a number of unrelated individuals in a sober type housing situation which
did not meet the City of Hopkins Code Part III Chapter 102, Article I. Neighbors were upset and it was
eventually denied. I feel this individual is trying the same tactic but now applying for “disability”
accommodations. This owner was well aware of the single-family dwelling neighborhood. He’s been
trying to get around the code to accommodate his own situation to accommodate a rental type
housing since he purchased the home.
There are areas within Hopkins and the surrounding community that are zoned different. These are
not new codes. The values of homes are affected by zone and code changes and accommodations
around the code. The applicant should have thought about his rental aspirations before purchasing
the house that is zoned for a family or individual or two or more person each related to other by
blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care or a group of four persons not related to one another.
In regards to the Federal Fair Housing Act, I feel this is a ploy by the applicant. He attempted a few
years back and is trying to work within the legal system to get around the code. Nine unrelated
individuals in one home with potentially nine cars is one issue. The family unit structure is another
issue. People in this neighborhood who purchased their homes bought these homes for a reason. We
have families, kids, dogs, etc. and looking for single-family dwellings, not rental units. This one house
could depreciate housing values in our area and change precedent for other homes (and possibility
the sale of the St. Gabriels campus) if the request was approved. It would change this area in a
negative way. Hopkins already has so many rental areas. The Interlachen Park neighborhood supports
many areas. We pay A LOT of taxes!
Disability can be very broad. I am not disputing race, religion, sex, color, etc. We are disputing nine
unrelated individuals living in a single-family dwelling. There are laws and codes in place to protect all
citizens.
In regards to the Federal Fair Housing Act requirements, the applicant can choose any race, religion,
disability, sex, or national origin for four unrelated people.
Staff Review:
84
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Staff find the comments relate to when the Applicant attempted to rent out the Property without a
license.
85
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
101 Oakwood Road Public Comment
Name: Requested to Be Anonymous
Address: Requested to be Anonymous
Email
Voicemail
Mail
Date Comment Provided: 07/01/2022
Comments:
I’m writing as a longtime Hopkins resident regarding the recent application for zoning
accommodations at 101 Oakwood Road. It is my recollection that this is the second attempt by the
same property owner to seek an accommodation that effectively converts a single-family home into a
compound or an apartment building. While the first attempt to secure an accommodation was based
on creating a recovery lodge of sorts, this attempt has pivoted by relying on disability language in the
Federal Fair Housing Act. While I am typically supportive of accommodations, the motivations of the
owner, the proposed large number of unrelated occupants, the negative impact to the neighborhood
and its homeowners, the precedent that could be set, and the availability of current and future
alternatives all lead me to stand in opposition to this particular request.
The motivations of this property owner are suspect. The owner appears to be focused on finding a
way to work the system so he can grow a rental property business in a single existing structure via
loopholes v. investing in other properties. If this accommodation were to be allowed, a single-family
home would be effectively turned into an apartment building in a residential neighborhood that is
zoned for single-family homes. If the property owner wants to expand his rental property business,
he should purchase other properties or find a larger property that is properly zoned, as well as suited
to meet the demands of his target tenants.
The impact of approving the accommodation will be negative for the neighborhood and its
homeowners. I drive by 101 Oakwood twice daily and walk by at least three times a week. At almost
every passing, it’s clear that the current occupancy already impacts traffic flow at the intersection of
Oakwood Road and Boyce Street due to numerous cars parked in front of the property. Increasing
the number of occupants at this residence will compound these issues as each new occupant is likely
to bring their own transportation, of which the property cannot accommodate onsite. Additionally,
the new occupants are to be unrelated adults who will have their own friends and family visiting. The
demands placed on and around the property by nine unrelated adults are too great. Commercial
properties and apartment buildings, as an alternative examples, are zoned differently to help ensure
that the properties and surrounding area can support the demands these developments
engender. Parking-to-building capacity ratios, for instance, are commonly established and enforced
to ensure surrounding areas are not unduly stressed. Should the accommodation be approved, the
area’s infrastructure will be overburdened, and the livability greatly diminished. Case in point, PEW
Research indicates that in 2018 the average household stood at 2.63 people
(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-of-people-in-the-average-u-s-
household-is-going-up-for-the-first-time-in-over-160-years/). Allowing the accommodation would
set the property’s occupancy rate at over 3 times this average. Even looking back at a recent peak
year such as 1970 when the average household stood at 5.79 people, an allowed accommodation
would be close to double the average occupancy. An increase of so many unrelated adult occupants
will have a negative noise impact, a situation that has already been a periodic source of concern,
especially for the neighbors in the immediate vicinity.
86
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
Interlachen Park has a storied reputation for being a walkable, peaceful, family oriented, charming
neighborhood that feels like a throwback to a bygone era. This reputation is a key reason why people
have historically moved into the neighborhood, a key reason why property values stay consistently
high, and a key reason why the tax base is at the upper end of the tax revenue band. This reputation,
and its tangible and intangible benefits, is also held intact because the neighborhood is zoned and
enforced as a single-family residential dwelling neighborhood (i.e., R-1C). The scale of this
accommodation obviously violates the zoning, and an accommodation of this magnitude effectively
changes the conditions around which current residents purchased their homes. The result of allowing
the accommodation would undermine the long-standing zoning code for the benefit of a single
business owner while undermining an entire neighborhood.
The city of Hopkins already has approximately two thirds of its housing stock zoned and/or used as
rental property. The current inventory of rental properties scales to meet the range of affordable to
market rate options. Looking forward, over 1000 new rental units will be coming onto the market
when the under-construction Blake Road Station development and the Alatus 325 Blake development
are both completed. These new developments, located within walking distance of 101 Oakwood, will
be completed to modern building codes that better meet the needs of the disabled and, at the same
time, will be offered at both affordable and market rate rental terms. Most importantly, these
developments are properly zoned and planned to accommodate their occupancy loads. Access to fair
housing and the options within the housing segment are not challenged; they are plentiful and will
only increase (especially near 101 Oakwood Road).
I respectfully ask the city to deny this accommodation.
Staff Review:
Staff finds that while much of the comments are unrelated to the findings of the ordinance, staff finds
that there may be merit to the argument that the scale of the proposed project is most similar to an
apartment as noted by the commenter, which may be a fundamental alteration of the zoning
regulations and/or nature of the area in which the accommodation is being requested (Sec. 1-21 (d)
subd. (6)).
87
DOCSOPEN\HP145\76A\828309.v1-10/7/22
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Mr. Kevin Stanton October 7, 2022
101 Oakwood Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
Mr. Stanton,
1. Executive Summary
Kevin Stanton (“Stanton”), the owner and operator of the “sober home”, on behalf of Ninety-n-Nine (the
“Applicant”), made a request for an accommodation or modification of a preexisting policy (the “Request”).1 The
policy for which the Applicant seeks an accommodation or modification is the City of Hopkins' zoning code.
Specifically, the Applicant seeks an accommodation to allow a departure from the definition of “household” and
to allow more than four unrelated adults to live in a single dwelling in the N2 zoning district. The Applicant's
Request is to allow nine unrelated adults to live in a single dwelling located at 101 Oakwood Road (the
“Property”). The Applicant originally appeared to indicate that the request was for a variance, but the City and
Applicant confirmed that the request was a reasonable accommodation and no variance request would be
processed.
Upon a review of the materials submitted to the City and the otherwise publicly available information available
to the City, staff has concluded that the Request should be denied. First, upon information and belief, the
Applicant submitted the Request when the LLC had been administratively closed by the Minnesota Secretary of
State. Stanton only reinstated the LLC when the City informed him of the administrative closure.2 Reinstatement
is retroactive and the City accepts the Request as submitted although when submitted the application was
invalid.3 The City finds that the Request does not meet the standards necessary to be entitled to an
accommodation because the Request does not provide information confirming that residents meet the definition
of having a disability under the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), does not
provide that increasing the number of residents is financially or therapeutically necessary, and the City finds that
the requested accommodation is incompatible with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
On September 30, 2022 City Staff requested additional information from Mr. Stanton, which was provided on
October 5, 2022 through a letter from the Applicant’s attorney (“Fabian Hoffner Letter”).4
2. Meet Reasonable Accommodation Standards
1 Exhibit A - Reasonable Accommodation Request, received June 10, 2022.
2 Records from the Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State provide ninety n ninety LLC was administratively terminated on February
1, 2022 and reinstated on October 3, 2022 after the City informed the Applicant of the administrative termination. Additional ly, ninety
n ninety was also briefly administratively terminated in 2020.
3 See Lyman Lumber Co. v. Favorite Const. Co., 524 N.W.2d 484, 489 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)(when a corporation is
administratively closed its existence, and ability to engage in acts, is suspended).
4 Exhibit B - Letter from Fabian Hoffner to PeggySue Imihy Bean, dated October 5, 2022.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
To meet reasonable accommodation standards, the Request must be a) linked to a disability related need; b)
necessary to afford the applicant with an equal opportunity; and c) reasonable.
The City is authorized to request information about the relevant disability to verify the existence of the disabilit y
and to determine is an accommodation is necessary.
a. Is the accommodation request linked to a disability related need?
To meet the requirements for an accommodation, each individual living at the Property must meet the definition
of "disabled" as defined in the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
In this Application, the disability to be accommodated is recovery from alcoholism.5 There must be an
individualized determination that each resident is disabled because of alcoholism. Each individual must
demonstrate that he was actually addicted to alcohol in the past, and also that this addiction substantially limited
a major life activity. This requirement can also be met by establishing admissions criteria that must be met by
each individual who will lives at the Property, and those criteria must be enough to ensure anyone living at the
Property is disabled.
The Applicant relies only on the statement that "alcoholism” is considered a disability under the FHA and ADA
and does not provide support indicating the residents are disabled due to alcoholism. This issue is addressed
again in Section 4 (1).
b. Is the request necessary to afford the applicant an equal opportunity to live in the housing of their
choice?
The accommodation is necessary if but for the accommodation, the applicant likely will be denied an equal
opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. Said slightly differently, the applicant could live in the identified
home but for the barrier.
Ensuring an “equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice” means that disabled persons cannot be
entirely excluded from areas that fall within particular zoning classifications—“particularly residential
neighborhoods”—or given “less opportunity to live in certain neighborhoods than people without disabilities.”
Denying the application does not limit individuals with the disability of al coholism from living in single family
residential neighborhoods in Hopkins. Denying the application does not result in individuals with the disability
of alcoholism being barred from the Interlachen Park neighborhood of Hopkins. The Property is currently being
used as a sober house and according to the testimony of the anonymous current or former residents, provided
in the application, is currently providing the stated benefits.
The City has one licensed substance use disorder treatment facility elsewhere in the City. The City does not have
a record of whether there are other similar, unlicensed sober homes within the City of Hopkins.
5 Active addiction is not a protected disability. Only active recovery from addiction might be. See City of Cambridge v. One
Love Hous., LLC, No. A20-1313, 2021 WL 2645519, at *6 (Minn. Ct. App. June 28, 2021), review denied (Sept. 30,
2021)(collecting cases and discussing when a disability might be recognized in the sober home setting).
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Additionally, the Request is more appropriately classified as Group Living, which is defined in City Code, section
102-530 (c):
“The group living category is characterized by residential occupancy of all or a portion of a building
by a group other than a household. Individuals typically occupy rooms or areas that do not include
separate cooking, eating, or bathroom facilities necessary to provide for self-contained living.
Group living uses typically have a common eating area for residents. Tenancy is typically 30 days
or longer. Examples of group living include convents, dormitories, monasteries, fraternity and
sorority houses, nursing homes, rooming houses, and similar living facilities, including the
following subcategories: [Residential Facility]. A state licensed residential facility or a housing with
services establishment…”
Group living is a permitted use in seven of seven mixed-use zones that permit residential uses and as a conditional
use in two of five neighborhood zones.6 See Zoning Code Table 5.1. Through this zoning determination, the City
has provided guidance on where Group Living uses are appropriate within the City. Group Living is not an
appropriate use in the N2 zoning district.
Financial Viability and Therapeutic Necessity
Two additional factors that are considered when determining if the accommodation is necessary relate to
financial viability and therapeutic necessity.
i. If the accommodation is not granted, will the business be financially viable?
The Request needs to show that increasing the number of residents is necessary to ensure that the business will
continue. While larger numbers of individuals living in the sober home will result in additional income for the
business, the Request needs to provide that an increase is necessary to ensure the business is viable. The
justification must be a "business" justification, not a "care" justification.
The Fabian Hoffner letter provides that the home is currently operating at a loss and includes the following co st
breakdown7:
6 City of Hopkins Development Code, Table 5.1
7 Exhibit B – Fabian Hoffner letter, page 3.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
The additional information does provide that the sober home is operating at a loss, but does not provide why
increasing the number of individuals at the Property to nine is necessary to account for this loss, why the
Applicant cannot increase rent for the four individuals currently living at the Property, and why “reserves” of
$300 per month is necessary or reasonable.
While the information provided in the Fabian Hoffner letter is informative, the application as a whole does not
adequately provide that increasing the number of individuals to nine is necessary.
ii. Is it therapeutically necessary to increase the number of individuals at the property?
The information presented by the Applicant should show that the accommodation is essential to the care being
received at the sober home and without the accommodation, recovery will not be possible. While there are
studies that state that a larger number of beds is "ideal" for sober living, a smaller number does not result in
residents of the house being unable to address their disability. Rather, one of the primary criteria for
consideration is whether the proposed sober housing provides a layout that facilitates accountability by the
inhabitants in maintaining sobriety and developing the necessary adult daily living skills necessary to maintain
sobriety while also developing and maintaining appropriate and emotionally connected adult relationships.
The Request does not provide any information showing that increasing the number of individuals to nine is
essential to addressing the disability of the individuals living at the Property. The Fabian Hoffner letter references
the study included in the Request which concludes that there are benefits to increasing the number of residents
in a sober home, but does not provide why increasing the number from four is essential, or why nine residents is
essential. Nine seems to have been chosen because that is the number of purported bedrooms available in the
home when it was used as a convent for nuns associated with the church across the street . The purpose,
activities, needs, benefits and harms of operation as a convent are different than the known purpose, activities,
needs, benefits, and harms of a sober home operation. Therefore, specific evidence relating to the Request is
necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the request and has not been provided. The City has subsequent to the
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Property’s use as a convent determined that the N2 zoning district is not an appropriate location for convents
and allows convents and similar Group Living uses in other zoning districts.8
c. Is the request reasonable?
The request is unreasonable because it will result in an undue financial and administrative burden on the city and
will fundamentally alter the city’s zoning scheme.
The Applicant has a history of attempting to skirt applicable regulations, specifically including the requirements
of the City. It is recognized in the law and publicly available expert opinions on sober homes that the individuals
residing in sober homes during a period of active recovery are a vulnerable population that may be taken
advantage of by derelict landlords and property owners. In 2019 the Ci ty was informed that the Applicant had
started a “sober home” with up to nine individuals living at the Property with no rental license or accommodation.
The City’s zoning and licensing provisions are specifically in place to protect the health, safety, a nd welfare for
the population as a whole, including renters such as sober home residents.9 Rental licensure carries with it
specific processes for the additional inspection of the property prior to occupancy and regularly throughout to
ensure compliance with items such as safety codes (e.g., building, electrical, plumbing, fire, etc.). Additionally,
instead of allowing the City to conduct a routine rental inspection of the property, the Applicant required the City
to work with his attorney, which required the City Attorney’s involvement, to schedule the inspection.
By failing to comply with licensing and other provisions, the Applicant has on this and other occasions
demonstrated a lack of concern for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of p ersons renting from him
by refusing to comply with applicable codes in the first instance. Additionally, as noted below in Section 4 (7),
the City anticipates an undue financial burden will result from expending city resources to ensure compliance
with City code requirements and the requirement/conditions of a reasonable accommodation.
Finally, as noted below in Section 4 (6), granting the Request would result in a fundamental shift to the zoning
practices of the City by intensifying the allowed use to more than double the number of individuals staying at the
Property.
3. Community Comments
The City received over 100 comments.
The vast majority of the comments were opposed to the accommodation request. Comments are attached to this
determination as Exhibit A. Staff excluded as discriminatory comments that associated individuals with alcoholism, because
of their alcoholism, with increases in crime, a higher likelihood that children would be in danger, or any other comment
that related those who meet the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism with a negative impact on the community.
Staff also excluded comments where the commenter requested to be anonymous. In the case of both discriminatory and
anonymous comments, neither were used as part of this determination.
4. City Code, Section 1-21 Reasonable Accommodation Factors Addressed Individually
8 Development Code table 5-1.
9 Development Code, section 102-110 (d).
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
(1) Special need created by the disability;
The Request provides that the special need created by the disability, alcoholism, is additional support to maintain
sobriety and avoid relapse. The Fabian Hoffner letter clarifies that “the substantial limitation is an inabilit y to live
independently without an increased risk of relapse.”
As noted previously, alcoholism is considered a disability only when there is a determination, for each individual
seeking an accommodation, that the individual must demonstrate that he or she was actually addicted to drugs
or alcohol in the past and that the addiction substantially limited a major life activity.10
The Applicant has not presented adequate information providing that the individuals currently living at the
Property meet the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism. The Fabian Hoffner letter relies on the decision
of the residents to live a the Property as proof they are unable to live independently without relapsing.11 The
City notes that there are many other reasons why individuals would want to live at the Property, including cost
of rent, desire to live in a sober environment for non -disability related reasons, etc.
In the Fabian Hoffner letter, Applicant's attorney provides that the anonymous letters included in the Request
are of three current individuals living at the home.12 Information provided does not provide specific criteria used
to admit these three individuals, does not provide that the fourth individual living at the property, the house
manager, meets the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism, and does not provide any admission criteria
that will be used to make sure future residents also meet the definition of being disabled due to alcoholism.
Additionally, public comments provide that the Applicant is currently purportedly living at the Property and, if
true, the Applicant has not presented information providing that he is disabled due to alcoholism.
Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, and therefore meets the de finition of being
disabled due to alcoholism, is a threshold requirement that must be met to request a reasonable
accommodation.13 Establishing that the individuals living at the home meet the definition of having a disability
under the ADA and FHA is the first step in making a reasonable accommodation determination. The Applicant
has failed to meet this first and vital step.
(2) Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation;
10 “Major life activities” include “functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning and working.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.201(b) (2020).
11Exhibit B – Fabian Hoffner, page 2.
12 The City notes that the Letter provides “[t]he Applicant provided letters from three individuals in the home but is happy to have the
City meet with the other residents to discuss their history of addiction and the consequences that their addiction has ha d on their lives.”
Page 2 While potentially a typographical error, the use of the term “residents”, indicating multiple, in addition to the thre e anonymous
letters indicates that there are potentially more than four individuals living in at the Property cu rrently in violation of the rental license
currently issued for the Property.
13 “Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is a threshold question.” Samuels, 437 F.3d at 801
(quoting Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir. 1997)). Cambridge p 23.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
The Request provides that residents will "learn to apply skills and will assist them in maintaining their sobriety in
a real-world environment while participating in a strong support group and sober environment.”
Further, the Request provides that the potential benefit that will result from the accommo dation is that the
Applicant will be able to continue to provide the described services and “it is highly likely that the applicant will
be unable to afford to use the property as a sober home and would be unable to provide these services” without
the reasonable accommodation. Without information providing that the accommodation is necessary to make
the request financially viable, the request does not meet the requirements to show the accommodation is
necessary.
In addition, the Request does not include any information explaining why increasing the number of individuals
living at the Property will provide any necessary therapeutic benefit.
To be clear, the Applicant has not submitted any indication that the sober home itself, its proposed occupancy,
and the proposed policies and procedures for operation has been evaluated by the Minnesota Association of
Sober Homes (“MASH”) (but the Applicant does note it is a member of MASH) or another credentialed person.
Without such safeguards and evidence before the City, there is insufficient evidence that the proposed use will
in fact provide any therapeutic benefit, nor even a safe living space.
(3) Need for the requested accommodation, including alternatives that may provide an equivalent level
of benefit;
The Request states that a successful sober living aftercare program requires two components: i) a residential
community; and ii) a strong support group, and further states that an accommodation is necessary to provide a
strong support group in a residential environment. The Request indicates that the Applicant knows of no
alternative to the Request that would provide similar benefits to those purported to result from the Request.
The anonymous letters that are purported to be from individuals currently living at the Property or individuals
who have lived at the Property in the past provide that the current living arrangement already provides a strong
support system.
(4) Physical attributes of and any proposed changes to the subject property and structures;
The Applicant has not provided any information in this section.
The City has not inspected the Property to determine whether it is suitable to house up to nine individuals and
has only performed inspections related to all homes generally, and rental homes specifically, at the Property. In
situations such as this, it is appropriate to require not only compliance with all applicable code minimums but
also the higher standards that are applicable to the sale of homes and other similar residential properties. For
example, applicable code minimums do not require a closet in each room designated as a “bedroom”, but laws
and standards applicable to residential real estate sales do. The present record before the City conta ins
inadequate information to be able to address whether the proposed sober home meets minimums let alone the
applicable higher standards that will be required.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Parking issues are discussed below in Section 4 (6).
If the City were to grant to reasonable accommodation request the Applicant would almost certainly be required
to make additional physical changes to the property and structures to ensure that the requested number of
individuals could live at the Property. Due to the other deficiencies in the application, the City does not need to
address what those changes might be.
(5) Potential impact on surrounding uses;
The Request does not expect any appreciable impact on the surrounding residential uses but does expect an
increase in business for surrounding commercial uses. However, there are no surrounding commercial uses.
For purposes of addressing whether a reasonable accommodation would impact surrounding uses the City
considers whether the reasonable accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration of the city’s policies,
including, specifically the City’s zoning code.
Many public comments state that the current use of the Property has impacted the use of their property. Using
the Property as a rental property does not fundamentally alter the cities policies as rental properties are allowed
in the N2 district. However, the Request proposes using the Property in a manner that constitutes a significant
intensification of the Property as a rental property, by allowing more than double the number of individual
tenants in a single facility, which does constitute a fundamental alteration of the City’s enforcement and zoning
policies. The impact of parking is discussed in Section 4 (6).
(6) Whether the requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the zoning
regulations, policies, or procedures of the city, and/or nature of the area in which the accommodation is
being requested;
The Request provides that the requested accommodation does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the
zoning regulation, policies, or procedures of the City.
Increasing the number of individuals living at the applicant's dwelling from four to nine constitutes more than a
60% deviation from the current use and would alter the zoning regulation, policies, or procedures of the city.14
There are no other uses in the N2 zoning district which allow nine unrelated individuals who are all of working
age to live in a single dwelling unit. Granting the proposed requested accommodation would require the city to
deviate from its well-established zoning code and comprehensive plan to allow more than double the number of
individuals who could live at the Property, greatly intensifying the use to a level that is inappropriate for the N2
zoning district.
Allowing nine unrelated individuals will also result in increased number of cars parked at the house.15 The
applicant provides that resident cars will be parked in the garage or in the driveway. The Fabian Hoffner Letter
14 Compare to Gayl v. City of Rosemount, No. A16-0046, 2016 WL 4162873, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2016)(upholding
grant of certain requested uses where request resulted in more than a 20% deviation from standards).
15 The number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site is equal to the number of individuals with valid Minnesota driver’s licenses, plus
one passenger vehicle. Development Code, section 102 -960 (n).
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
provides that “the Applicant has no plans to accommodate more than five vehicles at the property at any given
time and is happy to provide any assurance needed by the City that the Property will have no more than that
number of vehicles.” This statement and assurances do not address the City’s concerns with additional on-street
parking, which is addressed in Section 4 (8).
Neighbors report that cars are not parked in the dwellings driveway with only four individuals living in the home.
Increasing the number of vehicles at the Property over four would cause public health, safety, and welfare issues.
Additionally, public comments provide information that on one occasion an individual from the Property drove
over the grassy area between the Property's driveway and the neighbor's driveway and damaged the neighbors
in-ground sprinkler system.
The City Code requires that facilities must provide a minimum of two off street parking spots per dwelling unit
when the building has 1-4 units. For Group Living, the required parking is one off -street spot per six beds.16.
These parking ratios were established for households with not more than four un related individuals and for
Group Living in established and appropriate zoning districts and are not appropriate for a one-to-one comparison.
The zoning administrator would be required to make a specific determination for the Property, should an
accommodation request be approved.
Nine unrelated individuals would normally be living in three separate dwelling units, requiring a minimum of six
vehicle parking spaces. The Request provides that all parking will be off street, but the Applicant has not
submitted a parking plan or proof that five vehicles can be parked on-Property while meeting the requirements
for parking stalls parking stall and marking requirements.17 Additionally, tandem stacked parking is allowed for
residential uses, but stacking more th an two vehicles so that one parking space is blocking access for other
parking spaces is not allowed for residential uses.18
The Property is not situated to allow up to five vehicles while still allowing vehicles to enter and exit the Property
without coordination with other drivers.19 This is especially the case because the opening for the driveway is
only one-car wide.
The combination of the increase in the number of individuals living at the Property at one time, the increase in
the number of individuals in total living at the Property as a result of turnover, the increased number of vehicles
and lack of adequate facilities to store them on the Property and provide adequate ingress and egress for those
vehicles does not support granting the Request.
The Applicant previously did not allow the City to enter the property to perform an inspection and instead
required the City to coordinate with his attorney. This issue is addressed in Section 4 (7).
16 See Development Code, section 102-910, Table 9.1.
17 See Development Code, section 102-960 (c), (f).
18 See Development Code, section 102-960 (k).
19 As noted previously, the next-door neighbor provides that a resident already drove through the side yard in stead of using the
driveway access point at the Property.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Additionally, the City would incur significant additional time and expense confirming the individuals living at the
Property were, in fact, disabled under the ADA and FHA.
Finally, to be able to ensure the safety of the residents of the Property and the surrounding properties, the City
would be required to establish a more rigorous and frequent inspection schedule, auditing of the Applicant ’s
compliance with the terms of a reasonable accommodation, and establish new criteria for a single property to
ensure safety. These factors support the City’s finding that granting the Request would result in a fundamental
alternation to the City’s policies.
(7) Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden
on the City;
The Request states that the modification will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
To claim a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden, a city must be
able to articulate the particular burden and may not simply rely on speculation.
Police Calls
Public Comments claim there has been an increase in police calls to the Property since it has been used as a sober
house and the increase constitutes and undue administrative burden. The Applicant purchased the Property in
2018. There were no police interactions in 2018. From 2014 -2017; there were seven police interactions at the
Property. From 2019-2022 there have been 14 police interactions at the Property and 6 police sp ot checks.20
That is a 100% increase over the prior occupants of the Property and well in excess of the surrounding properties.
The total number of police calls to the 100 block of Oakwood was 69. Thus, the Property accounted for 20% of
the police calls for the block. 14 calls, constituting a 100% increase, resulting in an undue administrative burden
on the City and further confirms that the proposed use creates additional health, safety and welfare concerns to
the vulnerable, rental occupants and the ne ighbors.
Background Checks
Background checks and auditing by the City would pose an undue administrative burden. The City would require
reporting and auditing of whether each individual living at the Property meets the definition of disabled under
the ADA and FHA.21 The City would also require annual inspections of the property. While annual compliance
check inspections would not impose an undue financial burden (although more frequent than some rental
property inspections), confirming whether up to ni ne individuals, who are generally not required to stay for any
minimum amount of time and meet the definition of having a disability would cause an undue burden as it would
result in significant City staff time. The City is not required to perform such a process for any other residential
living facility or home.
Previous Non-Compliance Issues
20 Exhibit D – Police Report List.
21 In response to the City’s request for the applicant to provide that each individual at the Property is disabled, the Fabian H offner
letter does not provide substantive information on how the individuals at the Property currently meet the definition of being disabled
due to alcoholism, relies on the resident’s choice to live in a sober living environment as proof they meet the definition, a nd invites
the City to meet with the residents to discuss their journey with addiction.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
The Applicant also attempted to allow nine individuals to live at the Property prior to getting a rental license or
make any type of inquiry into obtaining a reasonable accommodation, resulting in significant staff time to
respond to inquiries and complaints, and enforce the City code. The Applicant has a specific history of extending
and making basic processes more costly to the City and the City believes granting t he reasonable accommodation
would result in additional significant staff time to address the actions of the Applicant.
Miscellaneous Burdens
Additionally, the Applicant has already chosen to involve his attorney, which resulted in the City having to alte r
its policies and involve the City Attorney, in a routine matter such as scheduling an inspection. The Applicant did
reimburse the City for the direct costs of the City Attorney, but the City did not collect other costs related to staff
time to follow a different process.
(8) Whether the requested accommodation is likely to have any negative impacts on the health, safety,
or general welfare of members of the community.
Community comments overwhelmingly believe increasing the number of individuals living in the dwelling will
have a negative impact on health, safety, and general welfare. Most focus on the increased number of vehicles
that will be permanently parked at the Property. Community comments are attached as Exhibit A.22
A few commenters also noted the following:
• Transient nature of the proposed use and turnover of residents at the Property.
• Increased number of individuals living at the Property and intensification of the use beyond what is
allowed in residentially zoned areas.
• Repeated intense confrontations with neighbors.
• Reports of public urination on the Property and on the neighbor’s fence.
• Parking on the street during a snow emergency resulting in the streets not being plowed properly.
Transient Nature
The Property is not a short-term stay or treatment facility but instead is a facility at which single men can rent
rooms with no minimum stay. It is unclear how many individuals have stayed at the Property, but many public
comments note the turnover and one neighbor claims to have seen a USPS address card with a significant number
of names added and crossed off for the Property.
Unlike a typical lease or rental agreement, there is no minimum stay or term required with the Request and
therefore the City anticipates continual high turnover with more than twice the numb er of available “beds”. This
significant concentration of high turnover is contrary to the established zoning and planning practices of the City.
Street Parking
Street parking is legal in residential neighborhoods. However, the City does find that incr eased parking on the
street, particularly the continuous, concentrated parking of vehicles, during both the day and night, generally has
a negative impact on health, safety, or general welfare in zoning districts created for the purpose of
22 As noted in Section 3, a small number of comments received by the City were discriminatory in nature and were not made a part of
this record.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
accommodating larger lot suburban uses, like the N2 district. Likewise, parking vehicles on the street and not
moving those vehicles when the streets are plowed has negative impact and is a violation of City Code.
The City also finds that according to public comments the Applicant promised that residents would not park on
the street when he was granted a rental permit and observations by community members note this is not being
followed. On-site parking was not a condition of the rental license, but the City notes that according to public
comments the Applicant did ensure parking would be on -site, so while the City cannot take action on the Rental
License, the Applicant’s actions inform this decision.
The Applicant also promises that residents will not park on the str eet in the present application and the City has
serious doubts that increasing the number of residents at the Property would result in the Applicant being able
to keep his promises. Instead, the Applicant’s track record shows that there would likely be an increase in issues
associated with parking and plowing of city streets. The Fabian Hoffner letter also provides that the Applicant is
willing to provide assurances that not more than five vehicles will be at the Property at any given time. However,
this proposed assurance does not adequately address street parking.
On-site parking issues are discussed in Section 4 (6).
Intense Confrontations with Neighbors
Confrontations between Stanton and neighbors and Property residents and neighbors does raise concerns for
the City. The City is concerned that the Applicant has been adversarial, confrontational, and prone to outbursts
towards neighbors.
Confrontations between neighbors and individuals residing at the Property are also concerning. Most of the
confrontations have been reported by the next-door neighbor, which is the only property that shares a side yard
property line with the Property. Generally, the City would give disputes and confrontations between neighbors
significant weight in making a reasonable accommodation request. However, the reported number of
confrontations between the immediate next-door neighbors and the Applicant, as well as the reported intensity
of these interactions, and a number of different residents does raise significant concerns with the City.
Public Urination
Reports of public urination are also concerning to the City.
Failure To Abide by Current License Promises
The City finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated an ability to follow city required processes for inspections
– requiring the City to spend additional resources dealing with the Applicant, requiring residents to move cars
during snow emergencies, and allowing an increased number of individuals to reside at the Property would likely
have a negative impact on the health, safety, and wellness of the adjacent community specifically and City
generally.
Issues with Property in General
Public comments note the failure of the Applicant to maintain the Property in a well-kept manner until just before
the Request was submitted. Case law allows for consideration of the deleterious effects of rental properties,
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
namely a lack of pride of ownership. This lack of upkeep also included failure to keep the sidewalks and driveway
free from ice and snow. Comments also note the failure to maintain planted trees and greenery in the past.
Commenters also note that the street in front of the Property is often littered with trash and debris.
The City finds that increasing the number of individuals at the Property will intensify the issues already present
at the Property.
(9) Any other factor that may be determined to have a bearing on the request.
The Applicant notes the following additional factors:
• Residents must all complete housework.
• Residents must remain sober while living at the dwelling.
• Residents must maintain a full time job or student status.
• Attend three twelve step meetings per week.
• Attend one house meeting every week.
• Owners and managers are members of the Minnesota Association of Sober Homes.
• At maximum occupancy, the house will have nine residents. There are nine bedrooms, with a maximum
of two persons in any bedroom.
• The house currently has garage and driveway parking.
Role of Comments and Other Publicly Available Documentation
Multiple public comments point to publicly available documents and court records that provide additional insight into the
Applicant that the City finds incredibly problematic.
The City does not run background checks on applicants for rental. Background checks are not generally part of the City’s
reasonable accommodation process, as generally the request for reasonable accommodation is for an individual seeking an
accommodation for themselves, or a small group of people, not for a large group of individuals with disabilities. It would
not be proper to make background checks a part of the City’s normal process for reasonable accommodations, but since a
number of commenters pointed to the publicly available documents, and the understanding that the reasonable
accommodation request would, if granted, place more than double the number of potentially vulnerable adults into a home
owned, and require participation in a business run by, the Applicant, making those documents part of the record and review
is a prudent step in analyzing the reasonable accommodation request.
Stanton’s History of Lack of Honesty
Stanton has a documented history of not being forthright and honest about his actions and intentions.23
Stanton’s past lack of honesty demonstrates that he may not be honest with the City through this Request or
subsequent interactions with the City. Lack of honestly when dealing with City regulations enacted to protect
the general health, safety, and welfare would result in both individuals living at the Property and neighbors being
at risk.
23 See Exhibit E - State v. Stanton, 27-VB-20-161974, Findings of Fact and Verdict; See Exhibit F - City Council Packet from June 4, 2019
(denying reasonable accommodation request); See Exhibit G - City Council Packet from June 4, 2019, (denying rental application); See
Exhibit H - City Council Packet from June 18, 2019 (denying rental license application); See Exhibit I In re the Marriage of Kevin James
Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran – February 2021 Order (noting Stanton’s history, actions in the judicial process).
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
Stanton’s Inability to Adhere to Legal Requirements
Stanton has a documented history of not following established legal requirements and orders.24 Stanton’s history
of not following or attempting to not follow general or specific requirements weighs against the Request being
in the best interest of protecting the public welfare and safety.
Stanton’s ask-for-forgiveness-instead-of-permission attitude is not conducive to providing a safe environment to
both the residents of the sober home and the surrounding community.
Stanton’s History – Violent Behavior and Lack of Self-Control
Stanton has a documented history of hostile, abusive, and violent interactions with others and an inability to control his
actions.25 This pattern of behavior is also present in a number of public comments. The City is inclined to deny the
reasonable accommodation request to the Applicant because of this history and the potential dangers it poses to the safety
of both the community and the residents of the sober home.
Stanton Purchased Alcohol For A Participant – Oversight of Sober Home Programs
Stanton admitted in a court proceeding to purchasing alcohol for one of the residents of another unlicensed sober home
he operated.26 Sober homes such as the one run by the Applicant are unlicensed and therefore have little oversight. The
admission in a court proceeding that Stanton purchased alcohol for a member of a sober home he was operating
demonstrates a disregard for the safety and welfare of not only the individual for whom Stanton purchased the alcohol,
but also the other residents of the home.
Sober homes, in and of themselves, are not regulated by state law and there is no particularized oversight. Instead, the
only oversight is through the City’s zoning and licensing codes and other applicable regulations that may come into play.
When evaluating licensing, a legitimate criteria for evaluation is whether the operator has a pattern and practice of
engaging in behaviors that evidence a deliberate disregard for the law and acceptable standards in a given situation.
Stanton has demonstrated a disregard for community group standards, City policies, City ordinances, and court orders. This
pattern of behavior demonstrates that granting the Request is not in the City’s best interest, the best interest of the
community, or the individuals residing at the Property.
Neighbor Comments
Neighbors submitted comments regarding the lack of upkeep at the Property and parking violations; however,
for the most part, such commenters failed to provide any documentation, and did not record any evidence, nor
were these violations reported to the City.
24 See Exhibit I Curran v. Stanton (judgements and award of punitive damages); Exhibit J - Register of Actions for In the Marriage of
Kevin James Stanton and Megan Caroline Curran (showing Currant Balance of $51,411.57 ); See Exhibit E - State v. Stanton, 27-VB-20-
161974, Findings of Fact and Verdict; See public comments regarding parking after promise not to do so; See public comments
regarding property upkeep; See Exhibit K - In re Marriage of Stanton v. Curran July 2021 Decision.
25 See Exhibit I - In re the Marriage of Kevin James Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran – February 2021 Order (providing information on
Stanton’s history and behaviors).
26 See Exhibit I In re the Marriage of Kevin James Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran – February 2021 Order, p11.
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-935-8474 Fax: 952-935-1834
Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life
Inspire Educate Involve Communicate
For the reasons stated above, the Applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation is denied.
You, as the Applicant have the right to appeal the decision of the reasonable accommodation specialist as
provided in Hopkins City Code Sec. 1-21 (h), as follows:
Appeals. Any decision reached by the accommodation specialist pursuant to section 1-21 shall be subject to
appeal to the city council by those persons with a right to appeal as provided herein. All appeals shall be
initiated by submitting a notice of appeal, in writing, to the accommodation specialist within 30 days of the
date upon which the decision was made. Upon notice of appeal, the city manager or their designee shall
present such appeal to the city council for action within 30 days. The accommodation specialist shall also serve
notice of such appeal on all parties entitled to receive notice of a decision issued under section 1-21. Following
a hearing on such appeal, the city council shall issue its findings, in writing, within 30 days.
All exhibits referenced in this letter are provided to you via an Egnyte link. A mailed copy of this letter with all
exhibits has also been sent to you.
PeggySue Imihy Bean, AICP
Management Analyst
Pimihy@hopkinsmn.com
952-548-6344
1
VIA EMAIL
November 11, 2022
PeggySue Imihy Bean
Management Analyst, Racial Equity Coordinator
1010 1st St. S.
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Kevin Stanton Sober Home Reasonable Accommodation Request
Ms. Imihy Bean,
We are providing additional materials related to the Appeal of the denial of Kevin Stanton’s
Reasonable Accommodation Request. Please see the attached submission.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Fabian Hoffner
The Hoffner Firm, Ltd.
(612) 206-3777
2
To: Hopkins City Council
We are writing to appeal the denial of the request of Kevin Stanton (“the Applicant”) for a
Reasonable Accommodation for a sober home located at 101 Oakwood Road, Hopkins, MN 55343
(“the Property”). The City Management Analyst, Ms. PeggySue Imihy Bean (“City Analyst”),
issued the decision on October 7, 2022, via email. She based the denial on the following factors:
1. The Applicant has not shown the current residents are disabled and does not perform
an “individualized determination” that each resident is disabled because of addiction.
2. The Property is more appropriately classified as “Group Living,” which would be
permitted in a different zoning district.
3. While the Home is operating at a loss, there is no explanation for the need for “reserves”
or why the program fees could not simply be increased for the four residents at the
Property.
4. The request is not “therapeutically necessary.”
5. The request would create an “undue financial and administrative burden” on the City.
In addition, the City Analyst cites additional allegations and information that we believe
are inappropriate in a reasonable accommodation determination. These include references to Mr.
Stanton’s past interactions with the City, unrelated legal disputes, and community opposition.
The denial rests on an erroneous reading of the role of the City Analyst in evaluating a
reasonable accommodation request. The criteria for evaluation of a reasonable accommodation
request has essentially three factors:
1. Is the accommodation reasonable?
2. Is the accommodation necessary?
3. Does the accommodation impose an undue financial or administrative burden?
If an applicant can show that a request is reasonable and necessary, the burden is on the City
Analyst to demonstrate an undue financial or administrative burden. The Applicant has submitted
sufficient material to demonstrate both reasonableness and necessity, and the claimed burden on
the City is insufficient to deny the request.
1. The Residents of the home qualify as “disabled.”
The residents of the Property are referred to sober living after completing clinical inpatient
treatment. The Applicant is willing to include a formal screening requirement that all residents
have attended inpatient treatment before living at the Property.
Regarding the disabled status of the current residents, the Applicant has provided letters
from each of the three current residents. The Applicant submitted those letters to the City Analyst
with their names removed to protect their identities. Personal testim ony from the residents
constitutes sufficient evidence of disability, and it is unclear what additional support would be
required to “prove” that the residents qualify as disabled. The three current residents at the Property
3
were all referred from clinical treatment centers to the Property to transition back to living
independently.
The citation to the Cambridge matter is inapposite. In that case, the Court claimed that
there was no evidence in the record regarding the substantial limitation of the residents’ major life
activities. In this case, each resident submitted a letter. Those letters noted the following:
- All three residents have received clinical treatment for alcohol and drug addiction
recovery.
- Treatment providers recommended sober home living.
- The residents do not trust themselves to live alone.
- The residents would likely live “on the street” if they could not live in the sober home.
This is more than enough evidence of an impairment that “substantially limits” the
residents’ major life activities. It is inappropriate and a substantial burden to require a separate
clinical evaluation of each resident before moving into the Property. It is also inappropriate for the
City to perform additional background checks or require additional material because the residents
are addicts. The City does not have the right, let alone obligation, to “report and audit” whether
the individuals living at the Property meet the definition of “disabled.” The requirement to show
“substantially limited” major life activities is “not meant to be a demanding standard.” Rinehart v.
Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc., 844 F.3d 748,
756 (8th Cir. 2016)). It is enough to show that the residents have a “record of impairment.” The
letters provided by the Applicant clearly meet this threshold. If the requirement is simply that each
resident has attended clinical addiction treatment, then the current residents meet that standard.
The denial is also incorrect that sober homes must “prove” the disability status of each new
resident in the home. All residents at the Property are referred from treatment centers, and the
current residents (all of whom came from clinical treatment) are representative of potential future
residents. See Oxford House, Inc. v. Browning, 266 F. Supp. 3d 896, 901, 911 (M.D. La. 2017).
See also Kearins v. Vill. Creek of Eldorado Home Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-00769, 2019
WL 2266635, at *4 (E.D. Tex. 5 Mar. 2019) (noting that because the issue was “handicapped status
of the residents a facility aims to serve”, “criteria for admission to the facility at issue is an
important factor”); Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, 294 F.3d at 47 (holding residents of
halfway house were handicapped after considering admissions criteria).
2. The requested accommodation is reasonable.
A request is reasonable if an applicant can make a prima facie demonstration that the
accommodation is “reasonable on its face, i.e., ordinarily or in the run of cases. Essling’s Homes
Plus, 356 F.Supp.2d 979 (quoting Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 768 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting
U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 401 (2002)). As far as we know, the City does not
limit the number of related individuals living in homes in the N2 zoning district. The proposed
accommodation for the Property is entirely reasonable given that, as the City notes, the Property
was designed as a convent to house nine individuals. The Property has nine bedrooms.
4
There are no concerns regarding the amount of habitable space or utilities at the Property.
There is no evidence that the accommodation would result in unsafe living conditions or violate
any City Ordinances or regulations other than the limit on unrelated individuals residing together
in a single-family home. Occupancy requirements must be applied equally to related and unrelated
persons alike. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 733 (1995).
The City Analyst’s claim that accommodating five additional residents at a single home
would constitute a “fundamental alteration” of the City’s enforcement and zoning policies is
wrong. The granting of the request would not change the requirements for any other home in the
zone, nor would it require that the City allow additional residents in any home. The City Analyst
further states that granting the accommodation would “require the city to deviate from its well-
established zoning code and comprehensive plan.” That circular logic cannot form the basis of
denying a reasonable accommodation request. The purpose of an accommodation request is to ask
the City to deviate from the zoning code because of the resident’s disability. Under the City
Analyst’s logic, any accommodation or variance from zoning ordinances would “fundamentally
alter” the City’s policies.
Finally, there is no evidence, other than assertion, that granting the request would require
the City to “establish a more rigorous and frequent inspection schedule,” “audit[] the Applicant’s
compliance” with the accommodation, or establish new criteria for the Property. If anything, these
factors would violate the FHA and provide evidence of discrimination against the Applicant. There
is no reason to treat the Property as anything other than what it is – a home for individuals
recovering from addiction to live as a “family.”
3. The fact that the residents could live in a different zone is irrelevant.
The fact that the Applicant could have purchased a house elsewhere does not negate the
responsibility of the City to grant reasonable accommodation for this house in this neighborhood.
“Equal opportunity” means “the opportunity to choose to live in a residential neighborhood.”
Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir.2002)).
Under the FHA, local governments cannot apply land-use regulations “‘in a manner that will ...
give disabled people less opportunity to live in certain neighborhoods than people without
disabilities.’” Id. (quoting Smith & Lee Assoc. v. City of Taylor, Michigan, 102 F.3d 781, 795
(6th Cir.1996)). “When a zoning authority refuses to reasonably accommodate ... small group
living facilities, it denies disabled persons an equal opportunity to live in the community of their
choice.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784. In this case, the Applicant and the residents in the Home
are entitled to a reasonable accommodation to allow them to live in this neighborhood, not a
different neighborhood in a different zone. The City should not be allowed to push functioning
sober homes into a single area of the city, isolating them from the other residents of the City.
The residents have provided testimony that they cannot live independently. The Property,
as currently constituted, can provide sober support but cannot provide the best therapeutic
environment for the residents to recover. Furthermore, the Applicant cannot continue to operate
the Property at a loss indefinitely and cannot in good conscience raise the fees charged for
individuals that often have no job or source of income when they first arrive at the home. The
5
residents wish to live in this home, in this neighborhood. Without reasonable accommodation, they
will be unable to do so.
4. The fees are appropriate for newly-recovering individuals, and the Property is
operating at a loss.
The denial letter correctly notes that financial viability is a consideration in evaluating
necessity. Although not dispositive, financial necessity has been held by courts to be a valid basis
supporting a request for reasonable accommodation. See. King’s Ranch of Jonesboro, Inc. v. City
of Jonesboro, Ark.,No.3:10CV00096, 2011 WL 1544697 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2011).
The City Analyst does not dispute that the home is operating at a loss and includes the
profit and loss statement submitted by the Applicant. She then states that additional information is
necessary to show “why increasing the number of individuals at the property is necessary to
account for this loss” and why the Applicant “cannot increase [fees] for the four individuals
currently living at the Property.” The City Analyst later contradicts herself by asserting that the
request was submitted “without information providing that the accommodation is necessary to
make the request [sic] financially viable.”
The Applicant has dealt with individuals in early recovery for many years and is familiar
with the typical sober home resident. As noted, he is a member of MASH, and the fees charged are
well within the norm for Minnesota sober homes. Sober home residents have often lost their
savings, homes, and jobs and struggle to make ends meet. Part of the reason they live in sober
homes is that they cannot support themselves in a typical home or apartment. The Applicant
charges $650 per month as a fee because, in his experience, this is at the upper limit of what most
residents can reasonably afford. If the Applicant increased the fee, many residents would be unable
to continue living at the Property.
As for the reserves, the Applicant set a rate of $300 per month for reserves to cover
unexpected periods with no residents, repairs to the Property, and other miscellaneous expenses.
The reserves are based on his business judgment, and the City Analyst provides no indication why
this amount would be excessive. If the City Analyst believes that $300 per month is excessive, we
ask that she provide an amount that would be reasonable or indicate explicitly that she believes the
Applicant should not have any reserves.
5. Studies have demonstrated the benefits of greater occupancy in Recovery Homes.
As noted above, under the FHA, “necessary” requires “a showing that the desired
accommodation will affirmatively enhance a disabled [person’s] quality of life by ameliorating the
effects of the disability.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784 (quotation omitted). It does not require
that the Applicant show that, but for the accommodation, “recovery will not be possible,” nor does
it require a showing that the accommodation is “essential” to the functioning of the sober house. If
a disabled individual requests an accommodation that is “reasonable,” produces no undue burden,
and will ameliorate the effects of the disability, the FHA requires that the accommodation be
granted.
The Applicant has provided a study demonstrating the beneficial effects of increasing the
6
number of residents and an expert report attesting to the benefits of a larger number of residents.
The Property is well-situated to accommodate nine residents. And as discussed below, there is no
valid basis to believe that the accommodation would substantially increase any burden on the City.
This evidence is more than sufficient to demonstrate that the requested accommodation will benefit
the residents and enhance their quality of life by ameliorating the effects of their disability.
6. The City has no reason to monitor the Applicant more than any other property owner.
As addressed further below, the Applicant’s past interactions with the City are not relevant
to determining whether the present request is reasonable and necessary. The fact that the Applicant
has had an adversarial relationship with the City rental licensing division is not evidence that the
City’s burden of monitoring and enforcement would increase if it allows additional residents at the
Property. If anything, it is simply evidence that City employees do not care for the Applicant and,
therefore, wish to deny his request. The Applicant already owns the Property and has four residents
living there. The responsibility of the City to monitor for “derelict landlords” taking advantage of
“vulnerable populations” is not increased in any way by granting this reasonable accommodation.
7. The other factors cited by the City are irrelevant to the determination.
Community opposition is not a valid basis for denying a reasonable accommodation. There
is no exception in the law that an accommodation request that meets the requirements of the FHA
can be denied if the community opposes the request in sufficient numbers. Therefore, the number
of community comments and their contents, even if not discriminatory, are irrelevant to the
determination by the City.
Likewise, the Applicant’s interactions with neighbors, “issues” with the upkeep of the
Property, and references to the Applicant’s “lack of honesty” and unrelated legal matters are
completely irrelevant to the decision to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation request. The
Applicant’s history has no bearing on whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and
necessary. Again, it would appear that the City Analyst based the decision, at least in part, on a
specific animus toward the Applicant. Personal animus is not a basis to deny the rights of the
residents under the FHA.
The City Analyst states that the record “contains inadequate information” to address
whether the Property meets the applicable code minimums or “higher standards.” This is also
irrelevant to the request at issue. There is no evidence that the Property fails to meet any relevant
city code requirements. The City Analyst also has no basis for claiming that the Applicant would
“almost certainly be required to make additional physical changes to the property and structures”
were the reasonable accommodation request granted. The Applicant has made no changes to the
Property and structures and has no plans to do so. The Property was designed for, and for many
years housed, nine individuals. No additional physical changes are needed to safely and reasonably
house nine residents.
Parking concerns, while appropriate to evaluating the Applicants rental license and
adherence to city codes, are also not relevant to evaluating the reasonable accommodation request.
The Property has a garage that can accommodate two vehicles and room in its driveway for three
vehicles. The Applicant has offered to provide assurances that the residents will have no more than
7
five vehicles at any given time and that they will not park on the street. If the parking concerns are
the determining factor in analyzing the request, the City and the Applicant can resolve that issue.
The citation to additional Police Calls and the requirement for background checks are
completely irrelevant and utterly incorrect from a statistical perspective. However, the inclusion
of this “analysis” does again betray an animus toward the Applicant and the residents. The City
Analyst provides no comparable statistics to other surrounding neighborhoods. It is entirely
possible that other neighborhoods in Hopkins saw greater increases in crime during the two
periods of comparison. If that were the case, it would actually be evidence that the Property
decreased crime in the relevant area. A contextless comparison of police calls between two three-
year periods is not evidence of anything other than a desire to shame the property’s residents.
Similarly, the reference to the “transitory” nature of the residents betrays an animus
towards sober home residents. While rental agreements may require a minimum lease period,
tenants frequently break leases and move. Single-family homes may have children that live with
parents for part of the year or other family members coming and going. There is no reason to
believe that the residents will remain in the home for any shorter period or be any more “transient”
than residents of rental homes.
For the reasons noted above, the decision to deny the request for reasonable
accommodation is incorrect and should be rescinded. The City Analyst should evaluate the request
under the correct standard based on the relevant evidence, and the request for reasonable
accommodation should be granted.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Fabian Hoffner
The Hoffner Firm, Ltd.
(612) 206-3777
1
Memorandum on Appeal of Denial
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to specific claims made by the Applicant in a document
submitted to the City as part of the appeal (the “Appeal Submission”) from the decision made by the
Accommodation Specialist1 on October 7, 2022 (the “Decision”) denying the request for a reasonable
accommodation for 101 Oakwood Road (the “Property”) made by Kevin Stanton (the “Applicant”).
(1) Applicant Claim: The Residents in the home qualify as “disabled.”
While the Applicant has provided three anonymous letters purportedly from three of the four current
residents of the Property, there is no indication that the fourth resident, the house manager, meets the
definition of being disabled and the Applicant did not originally include any screening criteria for future
residents and instead provided that “[r]esident’s are referred by members of Alcoholics Anonymous or
through treatment centers in the area.” Application page 4. In the Appeal Submission, the Applicant states
that he would include screening criteria for future residents but does not include any screening criteria.
(2) Applicant Claim: The requested accommodation is reasonable.
A request for a reasonable accommodation is unreasonable if it will result in undue financial and
administrative burden on the city and will fundamentally alter a city’s policies and procedures.
The City has articulated that granting the request for a reasonable accommodation for the Property to the
Applicant would result in an undue financial or administrative burden and would fundamentally alter the
City’s policies.
Financial and Administrative Burden – The Applicant claims that the Decisions finding that “to be able to
ensure the safety of residents of the Property and the surrounding properties, the City would be required to
establish a more rigorous and frequent inspection schedule, auditing of the Applicant’s compliance with
the terms of a reasonable accommodation, and establish new criteria for a single property to ensure safety”
provides evidence of discrimination against the Applicant. Appeal Submission, page 4. The City Code
requires that the holder of an approved reasonable accommodation license must provide the City with a
reaffirmation that the accommodation is still necessary. City Code, section 1-21 (f). Additionally, if the
City were to consider granting the accommodation, a condition would undoubtedly be to establish
inspection criteria appropriate for a rental property of this size to ensure the health and safety of additional
residents living in this one dwelling unit.
To claim that granting such a significant and impactful request that intensifies a use by more than 60%, that
may not be able to accommodate court determined standards for therapeutic benefits, for which there have
already been numerous issues related to upkeep, parking, and interactions with neighbors is not based on
these factors but instead because of the unfounded opinion of the Applicant that the personal feelings of
staff resulted in these requirements is incorrect.
The Applicant also questions the City’s citation to an increase in police calls to the Property and claims it
is without context and therefore improper. The Property has seen a 100% increase in police calls in the four
years since the Applicant purchased the Property when compared with the four years prior to the Applicant’s
purchase of the Property (from seven to 14). The 14 police calls do not include “spot checks”. When
comparing the same time periods, the City of Hopkins has experienced a 7.62% decrease in police calls
1 The Applicant refers to the Accommodation Specialist as the City Analyst in the Appeal Submission.
2
(from 100,948 to 93,261) overall and the Interlachen Park Neighborhood has experienced an 11.46%
decrease in police calls overall (from 864 to 765). The Citywide and Interlachen Park numbers include the
101 Oakwood numbers and do not exclude “spot checks”.
Fundamentally Alter City Policies – As is made clear in the Decision, the intensification of the use of the
Property, by increasing the number of individuals by more than 60% from the current use, would alter the
zoning regulation, policies, and procedures of the City. The Applicant’s attempt to generalize the City’s
position that any variance or accommodation request would fail the city’s standards of its “well established
zoning code” does not consider that the City grants a number of variances every year and that the City has
granted the only other reasonable accommodation request it has received that was not submitted by the
Applicant.
(3) Applicant Claim: The fact that residents could live in a different zone is irrelevant.
The Decision provides that a sober home could operate in any zoning district and also notes that the request
being made would be handled by a specific process in different districts. It is relevant because the Applicant
is attempting to use the reasonable accommodation process to utilize a home that proports to have nine
bedrooms as a sober home even though individual bedrooms do not necessarily increase therapeutic
efficacy (as is discussed further below) and the zoning code has a process for similar uses in other districts.
If the Applicant’s argument were to be universally accepted – that an accommodation is necessary because
he is operating at a $1,255 per month net loss based on his business decision and therefore needs additional
residents to operate a sober home – then the Applicant could purchase a home of any value and then request
an accommodation to allow however many residents is necessary for the Applicant to afford his mortgage.
(4) Applicant Claim: The fees are appropriate for newly recovering individuals, and the
Property is operating at a loss.
The Applicant incorrectly claims the Accommodation Specialist contradicted herself in the Decision
because she inserted a table showing expenses that the Applicant provided to the City and then stated
that there was not enough information provided to show why the increase in number of residents was
necessary. The Accommodation Specialist found that the information submitted by the Applicant
showing that the Property is currently operating at a loss was insufficient to show why an increase was
necessary and why the Applicant could not increase rents to make up the difference by increasing rent.
In the Appeal Submission, the Application provides that “[a]s noted, [the Applicant] is a member of
MASH, and the fees charged are will within the norm for Minnesota Sober Homes”, and further
provides that “[t]he Applicant charges $650 per month as a fee because, in his experience, this is at the
upper limit of what most residents can reasonably afford.” Appeal Submission, page 5. If the
Applicant’s experience is such that he understood that $650 was the upper limit of what he would be
willing to charge, it is unclear why then he chose to purchase this particular home which would require
more than four residents to cover the listed expenses and why the Applicant began, when he originally
purchased the Property, operating a sober home with nine residents, including himself, exceeding the
number allowed under the City Code without an accommodation. The City is not required to grant a
reasonable accommodation because the Applicant made a business decision without first establishing
that his operations would be feasible.
The Applicant has also not provided what rent would be if the accommodation were granted. If the
request to increase the residents to nine were granted, the Applicant might charge $650 per resident
3
and have gross revenue per month of $5,850, with net profit of $1,995 per month. The Applicant has
not provided why this amount would be reasonable, and instead inappropriately asks the
Accommodation Specialist to make determinations based on the list of expenses.
(5) Applicant Claim: Studies have demonstrated the benefits of greater occupancy in
Recovery Homes.
As provided in the Decision, the determination that increasing occupancy for therapeutic reasons is not
based on whether there is a therapeutic benefit, as the Applicant Claims, but instead on whether the
increase is therapeutically necessary. “Necessary” has been defined by courts to be “indispensable or
essential’, ‘that cannot be done without”. Meraki Recovery Housing, LLC v. City of Coon Rapids,
Minnesota, 2021 WL 5567889, *11 (November 29, 2021). The Applicant has not provided that the
increase in therapeutically necessary.
The Applicant and the three individual letters claim that the sober home is operating successfully n ow
with three residents in recovery and the house manager, so according to the Applicant, an increase for
would not be necessary for therapeutic purposes. In addition, the original application provides that
“[a]t maximum occupancy the house will have 9 residents. There are 9 bedrooms, with a maximum of
2 persons in any bedroom.” There has been no inspection to determine whether each bedroom could
accommodate two beds. If residents are not able to share rooms because of current Property design,
this fact could result in a departure from what some courts have determined to be therapeutically
beneficial for a sober home.
At least one court has relied on findings that it is therapeutically necessary to have occupants share
rooms. “Sharing a bedroom with another is of utmost importance for an individual in a sober house, as
it enables residents to hold each other accountable and ward off substantial impediments to a successful
recovery, namely loneliness and isolation.” One Love Housing, LLC v. City of Anoka, 2021 WL
3774567, *11 (August 25, 2021). The Property is purported to have nine bedrooms, but based on the
diagrams shown in the Application, it is unclear whether two beds could be placed in each room.
Requiring residents to stay in separate rooms because of the layout of the Property could diminish the
therapeutic benefit of the sober home.
(6) The City has no reason to monitor the Applicant more than any other property owner.
The Applicant claims that past actions should not be taken into account when making a determination
for a reasonable accommodation. The Applicant claims that his past actions, both with the City,
towards neighbors, and which are available publicly should be ignored by the City. This includes,
among other things, that the Applicant admitted to purchasing alcohol for a resident of one of his other
sober homes and that the Applicant has demonstrated a lack of honesty including through his
interactions with the City when he originally purchased the Property.
As is noted in the Staff Memo for this appeal, relying on the Applicant’s past behavior as an indicator for
future actions was reinforced after the Decision was issued. The Applicant called the Accommodation
Specialist three separate times on October 18, 2022, each time yelling and screaming at the Accommodation
Specialist. During the phone calls, the Applicant tried to convince the Accommodation Specialist that his
LLC, ninety n ninety was the applicant, not him (the application is clearly from Kevin Stanton) and stated
that he was going to reapply with “someone else” and that he was going to “fire Kevin Stanton” and apply
again. This one interaction is indicative of Stanton’s lack of honesty (stating that he would simply apply
using a different applicant in an attempt to hide his past actions and still monetarily benefit from an
4
accommodation), inability to adhere to legal requirements (his attempt to convince the Accommodation
specialist that the applicant should be the LLC instead of himself), as well as, lack of self-control (because
he called three times, each time screaming at the Accommodation Specialist). Instead of addressing past
behaviors and providing any explanation or justification for his behaviors, the Applicant claims that “City
employees do not care for the Applicant and, therefore, wish to deny the request.” Appeal Submission, page
6. Nothing before the City supports Applicant’s purported conclusion.
(7) The other factors cited by the City are irrelevant to the determination.
As is noted in Section 6, the Applicant’s past actions are relevant to the decision-making process. The
Applicant even acknowledged that his past actions could weigh against approval when he called the
Accommodation Specialist and stated that he would “fire Kevin Stanton” in an attempt to avoid
scrutiny of his ownership and management of the sober home.
The Applicant includes a number of statements in the final section of the Appeal Submission, each of which
are addressed briefly below:
Community Comments: Applicant claims that community comments are not a valid basis for denial. Issues
and incidents that are brought to the City’s attention in the form of public comments can be made part of
the record and those issues can be used as part of the decision-making process. Comments that were
determined to be discriminatory were not included as part of the record.
Personal Animus Towards Applicant: As has been noted a number of times already, the Applicant claims
that the Accommodation Specialist based the Decision, in part, on personal animus towards the Applicant.
Utilizing publicly available information, including about past behaviors of any applicant for a city approval,
does not indicate personal animus. The Applicant’s desire that his past behaviors be kept secret and not
made part of the record, and the City’s use of the established record in making a determination, simply does
not support a purported conclusion that the City acted with animus.
Additional Standards: The Applicant claims that the Property is fit to house nine individuals because when
the Property was built in 1947 it was used as a convent for nine nuns. The Property has not been inspected
to determine whether it is fit to house nine individuals based on 2022 standards. Additionally, the Applicant
requests to allow nine residents, with some sharing a bedroom; however, there has been no inspection to
determine whether each bedroom can accommodate two beds safely. As with any other residential situation,
the Property cannot be maintained or arranged in a manner that does not adhere to health and safety
requirements and inspections are the tool the City utilizes to ensure health and safety compliance. It is
unclear why the Applicant is so vehemently opposed to the City inspecting the Property to ensure
compliance with health and safety standards. The Applicant has refused the City’s inspections in the past
and forced the City instead to engage the City Attorney to assist with the scheduling of a routine inspection.
Parking: The Applicant claims that parking concerns are irrelevant and has promised that no more than five
vehicles will be parked at the Property. However, the Applicant has not provided a parking plan that
provides that all five vehicles will have ingress and egress to the Property. This is important because
community comments already noted one instance of a resident driving over a neighbor’s property and
damaging that neighbor’s in-ground sprinkler system, as well as the Applicant allowing current residents
to park on the street after promising that street parking would not be allowed.
Police Calls: The Applicant claims that relying partially on an increase in police calls to the Property
displays animus towards the Applicant and the residents of the Property. There is no basis for this statement
5
and it is unclear why it is included. Increased police calls results in an increase in cost and administrative
burden to the City and to the public.
Transitory: The Applicant adds this point at the end with a list of other reasons why he feels that the City
acted with animus towards him, partially relying on the portion of the record that provides that there seems
to be an inordinately high amount of turnover at the Property. Applicant uses the hypothetical of children
moving in and out of a parent’s home as analogous and that there should be no “reason to believe that the
resident will remain in the home for any shorter period or be any more ‘transient’ than the residents of rental
homes.” Appeal Submission, page 7. This ignores that the record reflects that there has already been
significant turnover at the Property. The Applicant once again attempts to frame the City’s reliance on the
record as displaying animus towards the Applicant, which is not supported by the record.