Disappointed by the Town Council decision to approve a General Plan amendment and PAD zoning application for a proposed apartment complex in Fountain Hills, opponents of the plan formed a committee and are now circulating petitions to refer the decisions to voters.

Smart Development for Fountain Hills is the committee chaired by Pete Brock, M.D. The group needs 857 signatures on each petition to send the questions to voters. The deadline to return the petitions to the town clerk is Monday, Nov. 4.

“Please join us in this process, irrespective of your opinion and make your voice heard,” Brock said. “If you are a voter registered in Maricopa County and a Fountain Hills resident (you must have a FH address) please sign the petition before Nov. 4.”

Brock notes that signers must present themselves in person to sign the referendum petitions.

Anyone who has signed an ePetition or other petitions in the past regarding the issue, those are not valid for the referendum, Brock noted.

Citizens can get information on where to find a petition to sign by calling 602-524-3988.

Mayor Ginny Dickey reported at her Town Talk meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 22, that the law states that the referendum election must be held no sooner than 90 days, and later than 150 days from the date the petitions are validated. That would likely put the date for the election in March or May.

Brock said residents became frustrated by the council’s decisions regarding the project in spite of input from several hundred citizens.

“Hundreds of Fountain Hills citizens attended and actively participated in two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings as well as the Town Council meeting on Oct. 1 with regards to the Daybreak proposal,” Brock said. “It was a spirited discussion and debate where literally all voices were heard. In responding to the concerns of the citizenry of Fountain Hills, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted against the proposal by a 6 to 1 vote in that Sept. 12 meeting.”

The Town Council held a public hearing and considered the P&Z recommendations on Oct. 1.

“The developers provided their opinion and there were questions from the Town Council only. Unfortunately, it was clear that the questions and comments from the Town Council members reflected their personal decisions and were already predetermined,” Brock said. “One council member dismissed citizens’ concerns over parking and blasting with his anecdotal observations. This same council member later publicly referred to these concerned citizens in the meeting as ‘vigilantes.’”

Fountain Hills residents, in favor and opposed, provided their comment during the hearing.

“In a shocking and unexplained move, the Town Council ignored the P&Z recommendation and the overwhelming majority of Fountain Hills residents opposed to Daybreak and voted 5-2 to tentatively approve the project,” Brock said.

The developers did meet with neighbors opposed to the project in an effort to address their concerns.

“I speak for the Fountain Hills residents who are opposed to Daybreak when I say we are not against responsible and thoughtful development,” Brock said. “It is our opinion that Daybreak is wrong for Fountain Hills in the proposed location.

“I also speak for…residents opposed to Daybreak when I say we are deeply disappointed by the behavior of the five Town Council members who voted for Daybreak yet refused to meet with concerned citizens who opposed it. The Town Council’s explicit duty is to represent the citizenry of Fountain Hills and operate in a transparent fashion.

“Therefore, due to this failure of representation our only recourse is to seek sufficient petition signatures to place both the requested zoning and city plan changes on a referendum and allow the citizens of Fountain Hills, not the Town Council, to make the decision on what is best for our community.”