Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pecan Valley Rtc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose two proposed residential-treatment homes in Pecan Valley; applicant says they’ll be low-impact
Summary
Dozens of Pecan Valley residents urged the Hurricane Planning Commission to deny a request to reconfigure two vacation-rental properties into small residential treatment homes, citing safety, CC&R conflicts and parking problems. The applicant, a psychiatrist, said the plans seek voluntary, nonlocked care for depression and anxiety and would involve supervised programs.
Dozens of residents told the Hurricane City Planning Commission on Dec. 12 they oppose a proposal to amend the approved site plan for Pecan Valley so two vacation-rental homes at 5147 and 5159 West 2200 South could operate as residential treatment homes.
Neighbors repeatedly urged denial or careful scrutiny at a public hearing that was continued to Jan. 9 because city staff will reissue corrected mailed notices. Michael Chavez opened the public-comment period for a video statement from neighbor Dean Rostrum, who said the proposed use is “simply not consistent with my expectations” and warned it would harm his enjoyment and property values. Multiple speakers cited community rules (CC&Rs) that they said prohibit commercial or boarding uses.
Several residents described safety incidents and behavior they associate with higher-acuity facilities. Robin Lee, an emergency nurse practitioner, said she had “grave concerns” about the proposal and asked whether the homes would be locked or supervised and whether the operators could assure children and neighbors of their safety. Wayne Halterman pointed to city code language and said he saw no evidence in the application that the properties would be run by a state-licensed or state-contracted provider, a condition he said the city code uses to define a “treatment facility.”
Supporters and neutral commenters also spoke. Dr. John Hendelman, the owner and applicant, told the commission the project is “not going to be a halfway house” or a substance-use inpatient unit and emphasized he expects nonviolent patients seeking help for depression or anxiety. Hendelman said occupancy planned for the converted use would be “less than 10” per house (compared with the houses’ existing vacation-rental capacity) and that residents would not be wandering the neighborhood unsupervised. “It’s not a locked facility,” he said, adding the intent is to create a low-impact environment for people who need extra support.
Other residents submitted a petition and said the applicant misrepresented support from the developer or HOA in application materials. Stuart Thomas said he had contacted the developer, who he said opposed the rezoning and had not given the “blessing” included in application correspondence; he urged the commission to treat written assertions carefully. John Woosley, a medical provider who supports treatment access, also submitted a petition with signatures opposing the particular rezoning and said his primary concern was enforceable oversight of the applicant’s stated promises.
City staff said the public comments and letters collected at the hearing will remain part of the record and will be considered at the continued public hearing on Jan. 9, when the commission may take action. Chair Mark Sampson told the audience their comments are “on the record” and that attendees need not return to have those comments considered, though they may choose to do so.
The commission did not vote on the rezoning at the Dec. 12 meeting; the hearing was continued to the January meeting to allow corrected noticing and to ensure full procedural compliance.
