Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2022.0110.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairman Gray called the meeting of January 10, 2022, to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Clayton Corey (Telephonically); Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic (Telephonically); Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr. Absent: Commissioner Jessie Brunswig Staff John Wesley , Development Services Director; Farhad Tavassoli Present: , Senior Planner; Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC William Ray, Fountain Hills resident, stated that he is against the rezoning application submitted for a property on Log Lane. He said that the rezoning request is hypercritical considering Fountain Hills home owners are prevented by deed restrictions to sub divide their lots. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that there are no Log Lane applications under consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. There is an application that is currently understaff review. 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission December 13, 2021. MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr. to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Regular Meeting of December13, 2021. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 5. Definitions related to detoxification uses and sober living homes Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 2 of 7 Mr. Wesley explained that the item tonight is a continued discussion from the November 8, 2021 & December 13, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. During those meetings it was decided that tonight's meeting would be for the public to provide the Commission and staff their comments regarding the potential amendment as it pertains to detoxification uses and sober living homes in the zoning ordinance. Following the input received this evening from the public and the Commission staff will prepare any changes to the zoning ordinance. The ordinance changes would be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then Town Council. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation that reviewed the current definitions in the zoning ordinance and definitions that have been added for use at the meeting. At the request of Chairman Gray, Ms. Woodward read into the record: an email sent from Nancy Plencer and a letter from Jane Bell to the Commission. (Attachment 1, page 7 & 8) Written comment cards in opposition to agenda item #5 were received from: Jerry and Connie Goss, Alan Meehan. Barry McBride, Fountain Hills business owner, suggested that the Commission consider forming a Study Committee with citizen participation to conduct research pertaining to detox centers and sober living homes. (Attachment 1, page 1) The following Fountain Hills residents spoke in opposition to allow sober living homes and /or detoxification facilities in Fountain Hills: Mark De Persio Cathi Marx (Attachment 1, page 2) John Meridith Greg Johnson Larry Meyers Liz Gilderseelve (Attachment 1, page 4) Crystal Cavanaugh (Attachment 1, page 5) Rita Brown Rainer Svchelp Robert Ashmore Scott Kornblue The following people submitted emails or letters regarding agenda item #5: James and Maureen Theiring, Joanne Wuttke, Karen and Gary Bradbury, Joe and Marie Sterling, Pauline Georgakis, Charles and Luann Kroeger, Bob Crostic, Bruce Betterman, Patricia Betterman, Nancy Stevens, Alan Grosso, Mary Ann Bosnos, Kathy Palumbo, Larry Meyers and Andy Bennett. (Attachment 1, pages 11 — 33) Mr. Wesley noted that obviously there is a lot of concern from the community. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 3 of 7 He said that he will be reviewing other communities best practices . He said that staff understands the concerns of the public and agreed that group homes can change the dynamics of the neighborhood. He said due to state and federal restrictions the box to work within is small but he remains diligent to protect the citizens the best he can. Chairman Gray said he wanted to clarify that the Town is not looking to invite these services to Fountain Hills. The Commission and staff are looking to put proper constraints' and ordinance language to restrict such use. He said last month he heard a lot of vocalization between commercial and residential properties. Mr. Wesley agreed and explained that detox facilities are commercial use. The Town is in no way allowing detox in residential areas. If there is a question whether a residence could be detox, a compliant could be registered with the state via their website. Commissioner Watts asked if the timeline for this topic could be escalated. He stated that the staff could look for guidance from other municipalities that have already been through this situation. He also asked for that the credentials of the lawyers that provided the Town with professional input regarding sober living homes. Mr. Wesley said his intent would be to have draft language at the February Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Follow up with the attorneys would probably be at the March meeting. Chairman Gray suggested that there should be two parts; detoxification facilities and residential sober living homes. This started with looking at appropriate locations for detox facilities as a result of an inquiry to the Town. Then it was realized that the detox facilities have the potential to create more sober living residences in Town. He suggested that Staff and the Commission focus and review sober living ordinance language in February and focus on detoxification zoning designations in March. Mr. Wesley agreed stating that the sober living piece is the more complicated piece. Commissioner Dempster commented that the Commission does not want to make bad decisions and this is an obviously an important topic. She said she supports focus groups, getting people together to brainstorm. She discovered that Prescott has a limit of occupants in these types of homes. She suggested the Town's business license application could be enhanced such as requiring a copy of the lease agreement. She would like to spearhead a focus group. Chairman Gray asked if it was possible for the Town to put a moratorium on sober living homes until the final results are confirmed regarding ordinances and restrictions. He confirmed he was in favor of am imposed moratorium during this process. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 4 of 7 Mr. Wesley responded that he would have to solicit the Town Attorney regarding the moratorium request from Chairman Gray. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley said that the residence Mr. Kornblue referenced was not known to be a registered sober living residence. He said that code enforcement is currently researching the issue. Commissioner Watts said that Prescott has a good handle on this particular situation and are successful. Their guidelines should be used to assist Fountain Hills drafting the ordinance. This process has dragged on far too long. Chairman Gray said that he wanted to review last month's discussion regarding sober living environments. He read the following points: Residential Property Utilization for Business: As an underpinning we need to consider a lens of equity across all business endeavors being conducted in a residential zoning designation. By staying true to the intentions behind allowing residences to be used for business purposes: Avon Sales, Insurance Sales, Convalescence Care, Sober Living and Partial Hospitalization Programs are all "Home Based Business" or businesses using residential zone property for purposes over and above their underlying zoning designation. The spirit of Home Based Business provisions within town ordinances is specifically to allow the "homeowner" to leverage their place of domicile as a: quiet, non-disruptive and safe place of business respectful of all adjacent owners' rights and intentions to maintain their neighborhoods. Allowing for any arm's length investor, investment group or commercial business to leverage a residence for any business that relies on throughput to generate revenues either directly or indirectly is a miss use of entitlements and intent surrounding "Home Based Business provisions" that does not have to be permitted and should not be permitted. The "business" of operating a group home as part of a larger business model is not afforded the same protections under the law as a direct relationship between landlord and tenant applicant would be. Suggestion: Language surrounding home based businesses and associated licenses be enhanced to require the applicant/business owner to hold the residence as their primary place of residence. This is true equity and eliminates misuse of residences by investment or commercial businesses. As it relates to Sober Living, Partial Hospitalization, Convalescent care and alike the only legitimate pathway to operating a group home of any type in a "residential zoned" property is for the homeowner to similarly occupy and run the "business". Group homes rely on client turn over and payment for services to facilitate gross profits in the same manner as the hair stylist and we don't allow a 10 chair salon to operate 24/7 in any residential district today. Capacity & Occupancy: A residence utilized as a business should not be exempt from ordinance Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 5 of 7 language defining hours of operation. To this end any group home should be required to seek a 24hr use permit to run their for profit home 24hrs a day. Not requiring such a permit puts all adjacent home based businesses at a disadvantage and thereby creates a condition of inequality for the same hair dresser who wishes to see clients after hours. Suggestion: Require 24hr use permit application for all home based businesses being operated as group homes. Realizing that this is very subjective, State and Federal precedent in place generally stating that any law or ordinance put in place shall demonstrate it is for the benefit of the occupant. Limitations on number of occupants in a home which offers supervision or care is for the benefit of the occupant. All of the group home models are volume based models seeking max occupancy that the jurisdiction will allow, one local operator has gone as far as putting a bed into the garage visible from the street. If we want to do right by the occupants of any kind of group home we would limit the number of total occupants or set a maximum ratio of occupants to medical professionals to better their potential outcome and limit the "mill effect". Suggestion: We cap occupancy at 6 including medical professional and of course the property owner/landlord in reference to #1 above. This would provide a care mode ration of 4:1 or 5:1 if the owner was also the medical professional. These ratios would align with any medical provider's ratios. We have to decide if we're in support of the patient and their outcomes here or if we're more interested in preserving the revenues of the operators and promoting expansion of the max occupancy model. Landlord / Tenant Relationship & Community Welfare: Current precedent with a number of group home businesses allows the business to place an occupant in a home as a part of a larger for profit treatment plan in lieu of the tenant having a direct relationship with the homeowner in the form of a rental agreement. I would again argue first that the "business" of operating a group home as part of a larger business model is not afforded the same protections under the law as a direct relationship between landlord and tenant applicant would be. In addition, this model presents the opportunity to inadvertently put the adjacent community at risk. The State under Section 13-3827 requires the registration of sex offenders with a number of jurisdictions including: municipal, sheriff, etc. This is also the mechanism which is utilized to allow public to be made aware of an offenders address and proximity to their family or when an offender moves into proximity. The model we have today with a number of group home residences allows a potential offender to be under contract for care by for profit provider and placed into a neighborhood for up to 120 days without making any associated declarations of their actual whereabouts. The can occur as the offender technically maintains a primary residence elsewhere in the county where they are registered and as they are under a contract with a medical provider are in effect masked as to their whereabouts in this regard. This is an unacceptable scenario which has potential to subvert the welfare protections provisioned by Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 6 of 7 state law. In addition the state law prohibits "clustering" of offenders thus our current practices undermine two protections that state law currently affords the community. Suggestion: to reside at a particular location an individual or group of individuals directly must rent without prejudice direct from a homeowner/landlord. This includes a lease executed directly by both parties. It is only this direct relationship that is protected by law. No third party, arm's length or commercial business/tenant relationships should be permitted. This would likely be a disruption to the business model but I don't feel that's our concern. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that he has read through his suggestions and passed them along to the Town attorney. Mr. Wesley said he is keeping them in mind as well as the public comments as he drafts the ordinance. He said that the Town Attorney will immediately see the legal issues and the potential to end up in court. They are usually risk averse and don't like to go that way. In closing, Chairman Gray asked respectfully that if the Town's legal administers an adverse reaction, he asks they bring precedence. Commissioner Watts agreed with Chairman Gray and noted that the key to having the residential owner present on site keeps any issue minimal. They often demonstrate pride of ownership and that can make all the difference. 6. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. None. 7. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. None. 8. REPORT from Development Services Director. None. 9. ADJOURNMENT Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2022 7 of 7 The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held January 10, 2022, adjourned at 7:25 p.m. PLANNING5R NING COMMISSION G ' ty" Cha. an Peter Gr y ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY. ()(1AAIL-1L2. (1301)4 EGA-'1), Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on January 10, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of January 24, 2022. NAAJA% L/30140/(4-1)( Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant