The Town Council held its first public discussion related to proposed regulations for group homes in Fountain Hills on Tuesday, April 5. Staff was asked to come back with more information and clarification on several proposed changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. The discussion was continued until the council’s regular meeting on Tuesday, May 3.

The Planning and Zoning deliberations were ongoing for months before the recommendation was advanced to the council. The issue came up about a year ago after information came to light regarding inquiries about zoning requirements for substance abuse detox facilities. That has led to the focus on sober living facilities in the community and how they are regulated. Detox facilities are being reviewed separately by staff and Planning and Zoning at this time.

About 100 people showed up for the council meeting and about a dozen speakers generally made it clear they do not want any changes to the P&Z recommendations.

Larry Meyers, who has been vocal on the subject since the beginning, said the council is showing partiality to business and not the citizens’ interests.

“The (recommendation) was passed unanimously by P&Z and now it gets watered down (by the council),” Meyers said. “If this is not about business, no one should complain about five people (limitation) or half-mile (spacing).

“You need to take care of us.”

Crystal Cavanagh also told the council not to “water down” the regulations.

“Be leaders, not followers,” Cavanagh said. “Don’t fear a lawsuit. Fight for us, find attorneys who will fight for us.

“Pass exactly what P&Z (recommends). Citizens of Fountain Hills are not accepting anything less.”

State Senator John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills resident, told the council he was shocked that staff would lump together disabled citizens the same as recovering drug addicts.

“Send a message with your regulations,” Kavanagh said. “People need protection and are looking for champions. Will you stand with the citizens or fear a lawsuit?

“Staff works for you, and you work for the citizens.”

Jane Bell said the council should recognize that residential recovery facilities are now outpatient treatment facilities – not sober living homes.

Bell said that eight cities in Arizona have requirements that limit the number of patients in a home to five or six (Town staff was proposing up to eight to include staff). She said the Federal Ninth Circuit Court in California has supported those regulations.

Bell also claimed that fewer patients are far safer for everyone, including other patients and staff.

Andy Bennett, a consultant who advises those in the recovery industry, challenged what he was hearing from others in the audience.

“What I see in this ordinance is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist,” Bennett said. “This is a community trying to tighten the screws on a protected class, which is what addiction is. No one wants to live that way.”

Changes

Council listened to public comment prior to its discussion and many of the points brought up by the public are issues where the council is seeking further direction.

Development Services Director John Wesley said that rules for group homes apply equally to all types of community living facilities including assisted living for seniors, developmentally disabled, physically disabled and sober living. He also emphasized that such residences are homes for the people living there – they are not and should not be treatment facilities. It is clear that any type of medical treatment, including substance abuse detox, is not permitted in group home environments, according to Wesley.

P&Z proposed a limit of eight persons, including resident staff for community residences. Staff notes that the number for most communities, as well as some state regulations, is 10. It is suggested that number be used for the overall ordinance covering all types of homes.

Staff has proposed two categories of group homes, family residence (a year or more) and transitional residence (30 days to one year), which could provide the opportunity to have different limitations on the number. Wesley said the distinction may allow the town to require fewer residents in transitional facilities (sober homes). It is still unclear to staff whether such a distinction would be allowed, which is one area requiring more research.

Currently the Town uses a spacing requirement of 1,200 feet between community residences. This includes all types. P&Z recommends this be increased to a half-mile (2,640 feet). Staff is recommending the 1,200 feet remain, citing the goal of allowing integration of such homes without creating an institutional district with overconcentration. This is about two blocks of separation. Staff cites other communities at 800 feet to 1,320 feet (quarter mile). A couple of council members suggested staff look at something between 1,200 feet and a half-mile.

Wesley suggested council consider deleting requirements related to tax status, liability insurance and consent to unannounced inspections. He had concerns about the appropriateness, necessity or legality of these issues. Council is seeking more information on some of these provisions.

He proposed that a penalty section be rewritten to be consistent with the penalty section of Town Code. Staff will also continue to work on a system to provide reasonable accommodation for challenges to provisions. Town Attorney Aaron Arnson said if there is a process in place it must be used before someone can file a lawsuit to challenge the regulations.

Councilman Mike Scharnow said he is not as confident in the P&Z recommendations as many members of the audience who said it is defensible or at least accepting a challenge. Scharnow said the council has been meeting with attorneys (in closed session) and that is not what they have been advising.

“This is not being good stewards of the Town’s fiscal health,” Scharnow said. “We are doing what we need to do and need to rely on our staff’s advice.”

Councilman Alan Magazine also challenged those who were critical.

“I’m hearing something that really troubles me this evening,” Magazine said. “You have come to us demanding we rubber stamp the P&Z recommendation. Our job is to discuss this to come to a decision. Your demand falls on deaf ears.”