While town officials stated they would not go forward with a proposed zoning amendment to designate a zoning classification for “detox” facilities for drug or alcohol rehabilitation, a number of citizens commented during the “call to the public” at the council’s May 18 regular session.

The May 18 meeting was the date originally advertised for the discussion, but citizen concern over the proposal prompted the town to remove the consideration. The town had never received a specific application for such a facility. There was, however, an inquiry to staff by a Scottsdale Realtor regarding zoning for a detox center.

Crystal Cavanaugh, a citizen who had made a public records request to the town related to the inquiry, stated in the public forum that the request was on behalf of Fountain Hills Recovery, a firm that currently operates lower-level recovery facilities in town.

“This is not the vision of most Fountain Hills residents,” Cavanaugh said. “Put the best interests of the residents of Fountain Hills first.

“Absentee landlords should be accountable for any issues caused by their facilities.”

Resident Larry Meyers claimed the vast majority of Fountain Hills residents do not want such a facility in town.

He stated he had recently visited such a detox facility in Phoenix during the day and was accosted to where Phoenix Police who were posted at the site had to intervene on his behalf.

Meyers suggested if the council visited the location and sit for 30 minutes, members would not support such a facility in town.

“That was in broad daylight, imagine what it is like after dark,” Meyers said.

Resident Thomas Jacobs told the council he has been a resident for more than a decade and much of that time the town and citizens have tried to avoid being like Scottsdale. He said such a detox center could create problems and it does not fit what the community is trying to achieve.

Call to the public is to provide for an opportunity for citizens to comment on subjects not on the posted meeting agenda. Since such subjects are not included on the agenda, it would be an open meeting law violation for council members to discuss the issue at length.