The North Little Rock City Council declined to approve a special‑use permit for a proposed inpatient substance‑use treatment center at 4600 McCain Boulevard after extended public comment and council discussion.

The measure would have allowed an applicant who said his facility provides medical detox, residential treatment and intensive outpatient services to locate overnight beds in a C‑3 zone. The council voted on the final motion on the special‑use request with two members voting yes and six voting no; the motion failed.

The applicant, Grant Lee, described the operation as a medically licensed program that now provides outpatient services and a medical detox program and said the proposed facility would start with 34 overnight beds and could expand to 72 within 18 months if demand and build‑out permitted. He said his current program requires rides for most patients, screens clients and excludes people under indictment for violent crimes. “There’s 24‑hour security, 60+ cameras,” he told the council. Lee also said his facility does not plan to enroll Medicaid or Medicare patients at this time.

Business owners and local residents spoke largely in opposition. Joe Keeling, a McCain Boulevard business owner, said the facility’s application described a daily throughput that could reach 147 clients and called the location inappropriate for heavy automobile and pedestrian traffic. Robin Iverson, owner and director of 501 Volley, said her youth sports facility brings families and visitors year‑round and expressed concern about safety for young athletes and coaches. Several hoteliers and hospitality operators said existing foot traffic and hotel occupancy on McCain already draw people who are transient or unsheltered, and they warned a treatment facility at that site could deter future investment.

Other speakers urged approval. Several current and former patients and employees of the applicant’s program described medical and behavioral treatments offered, including an intravenous protocol they called “NAD,” and credited the program with reducing withdrawal symptoms and enabling recovery. Physician Adam Sandlin and multiple clinicians supporting the application said access to treatment reduces the number of untreated people in public spaces and can improve public safety and public‑health outcomes.

Council members questioned both the applicant and the public witnesses about screening, security, whether patients could come and go, connections to Medicaid, the difference between outpatient and inpatient operations, and how many patients would be outside the building at any time. The applicant said court‑ordered patients can be required to remain but that the facility is not a jail; he said false fire alarms are reported to police and staff supervise outdoor areas and can restrict access by covering fencing if required.

Mayor Terry C. Hartwick and several council members emphasized the tension between two aims: increasing access to treatment and protecting commercial corridors and nearby businesses. Council members also noted there are different models of treatment centers and that outcomes depend on program design and local supports. Chief law‑enforcement representatives said untreated individuals in public spaces are the greater public‑safety concern, while acknowledging enforcement limits when people are on private property or when state and federal court rulings restrict certain enforcement tools.

After the public hearing and council questions, the motion to adopt the special‑use ordinance failed on the recorded vote: Council Member Ross—no; Council Member Hamilton—yes; Council Member Hart—yes; Council Member Robinson—no; Council Member Baxter—no; Council Member Harris—no; Council Member Fowler—no; Council Member Insilaco—no. With two yes votes and six no votes, the ordinance was not adopted.

The council and mayor did not schedule further action on the application at the meeting; the applicant indicated he had been searching for a year for suitable locations and had considered alternatives elsewhere in the area.

The council’s public hearing included multiple speakers for and against the request; council members said they would retain the record if the applicant refiled or proposed a different site.