Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Residences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fountain Hills council adopts ordinance moving community‑residence rules to business code amid fairness concerns, 5–1
Summary
The council approved ordinance 2609 to move registration, insurance and inspection rules for community residences into town business regulations; supporters said it protects neighborhoods, while one council member warned of constitutional and Fair Housing Act risks before a 5–1 vote.
The Fountain Hills Town Council voted 5–1 to adopt ordinance 2609, creating a new Article 8‑8 in town code that establishes registration and reregistration requirements, inspection cooperation, insurance provisions and penalties for community residences.
Staff presented the ordinance as a recodification and refinement of existing rules currently located in zoning code section 5.13. "Section 8‑8‑3 covers registration and reregistration … with additions for inspection cooperation and insurance provisions," staff said, noting the Planning & Zoning Commission previously recommended the insurance numbers now in the draft.
Council discussion focused on several legal and operational questions. One council member asked whether the town could require operators to name the town as an additional insured; the town attorney said that practice typically applies when town property or a town contract is involved and he would check the legal authority. The same council member raised equal‑protection and Fair Housing Act concerns, asking what specific problem the ordinance is meant to fix and whether the town is at risk of singling out protected populations. Staff replied that the ordinance is intended to protect neighborhoods, that the town will verify state licensing and that provisions are intended to remain within state and federal allowances.
Public speakers supported adoption. Larry Byers, who said citizens and Planning & Zoning Commissioners worked on the language for years, urged the council to finish the process. Another resident, Favanagh, said inspection authority is necessary to verify occupancy limits and neighborhood impacts.
A motion to adopt the ordinance was made and seconded; on roll call the ordinance passed 5–1. Council member Calabianakis cast the lone dissenting vote and repeatedly urged caution about possible constitutional and federal housing law conflicts.
Staff said existing operators that are nonconforming under prior zoning will be given notice and an opportunity to register and comply; certain currently operating entities will be subject to the business‑license registration when the new code is effective and staff estimated a 60–90 day administrative period to update licensing and notify operators. The town attorney said reregistration provides an annual compliance checkpoint and that failure to comply could lead to revocation of registration.
