At its March 14 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission got the ball rolling on possible Zoning Ordinance amendments concerning drug and alcohol treatment centers, as well as detoxification facilities within Fountain Hills.

In late 2020, Town staff received inquiries regarding the possibility of establishing a detoxification facility within the community. Since local ordinances do not really address this specific use, it was determined it would be best to get something on the books now, rather than waiting for a potential application for such a facility down the road.

Development Services Director John Wesley led the discussion with a presentation at the March 14 meeting. Commissioners added their own insight and concerns to the conversation, and the public was invited to speak directly to the matter as well. As this was a discussion item, no formal action was taken.

Wesley began his presentation by clarifying what, exactly, a detoxification facility is, noting in his background information provided to the Commission that they are “places people can go for assistance to withdraw from dugs and/or alcohol.”

There are three main types of detoxification facilities including sub-acute, outpatient and more intensive inpatient facilities. The methodology at these facilities also varies.

“In some cases, the patients are self-motivated to end their addiction and have the time and means to seek treatment,” the background information explains. “In other cases, the patient may be ordered to go through treatment, starting with the detoxification, or they may not be as personally motivated to seek assistance.”

During the Town Council’s annual retreat in February 2021, Council members asked staff to explore how these facilities could be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance.

“When staff followed up with a draft ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission was [already] addressing the issue of hospitals and possible amendments to allow that use,” Wesley explained. “Given the public concern about detoxification facilities and possible confusion with what was being considered for hospitals, the Commission voted on April 12, 2021, against the draft ordinance and work on that issue was halted.”

Now that ordinances regarding hospitals are on the books and given reports from the Town Attorney that the community is unable to simply prohibit detoxification facilities, Planning and Zoning is now circling back to address those lingering issues. It’s important to note that this item is separate, though somewhat related, to the matter concerning group and sober living homes. (See related story.)

Detox

There is an important distinction between detoxification and treatment facilities, so Planning and Zoning is addressing both.

During the meeting, detox facilities were noted as coming in two main varieties, beginning with sub-acute/outpatient, which typically operate during normal daytime business hours. Patients come and go at these facilities, and sometimes receive medication.

Acute/inpatient facilities, on the other hand, operate 24/7 with patients undergoing a medically supervised detoxification process, generally resulting in a stay of five to seven days.

For zoning districts, Wesley suggested C-2 and/or C-3, especially for acute/inpatient facilities. He also suggested additional conditions could be put in place, such as requiring a place for indoor waiting, a contact for reporting complaints or issues, as well as information on discharge policy.

Treatment

On the matter of treatment facilities, these are broken down as outpatient and inpatient. The former typically operate within daylight business hours but can extend into the evening, clients come for treatment – be it medication, counseling or group meetings – and they may offer outpatient detox treatment as part of their program.

Inpatient facilities are those where a patient resides on-site while receiving treatment. They operate 24/7 and the process typically lasts from 30 to 90 days.

The zoning district would likely be C-1 through TCCD, though C-2 and/or C-3 were suggested, especially for acute/inpatient facilities. Wesley noted a special use permit could be required for consideration as well.

Other conditions to consider were the same as for detox facilities, including requiring a place for indoor waiting, discharge policies, etc.

Wesley concluded saying he is looking for direction on how to address these matters in town ordinances. Based on the information provided, a first draft of said addendums will be brought back to the commission for consideration. Following additional conversations on the matter at Planning and Zoning’s April meeting, a public hearing might be possible as soon as May.

Discussion

Commissioners and members of the public offered comments following the presentation, with Commissioner Susan Dempster saying she would like to explore whether a required distance between such facilities and schools/daycares could be considered.

Commissioner Clayton Corey wanted language included related to on-site drug test requirements, just to cover that base, and asked if input from law enforcement could be sought while forming draft language.

From the community, Larry Meyers spoke during the open call, warning that property values typically drop for anyone living near a detoxification facility.

“I know you can’t ban them, but you better be careful with what you do…” Meyers said. “Do we want to tell these people their property values just fell?”

Additional speakers reiterated concerns frequently associated with detoxification facilities, ranging from the patients who utilize them to the potential of “drug paraphernalia in the streets” or bad-faith operators.

Staff will now begin the process of creating potential Zoning Ordinance amendments, with discussion to continue in the coming months.