January 7, 2026, Board of Adjustment Public Hearing.

City of Mesa — City Council Study Session (2026-05-21)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 42082 characters

{00602347.1}

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING MINUTES

January 7, 2026

The Board of Adjustment of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main
Street, on January 7, 2026, at 5:45 p.m.

BOARD PRESENT
BOARD ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT

Alexis Wagner, Chairperson
Shelly Allen, Vice Chair
Troy Glover
Janice Paul
Todd Trendler
Gerson Barrera

Jennifer Merrill
Cassidy Welch
Kelly Whittemore

1.
Meeting called to order and roll call.

Chairperson Wagner called the public hearing to order at 5:45 p.m. and conducted a roll call.

Chairperson Wagner excused Boardmember Barrera from the entire meeting.

2.
Take action on all Consent Agenda items.
All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be considered as a group by the Board of Adjustment
and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Boardmember or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered as a separate item. If a citizen wants an item removed from
the consent agenda, a request must be made prior to the Board’s vote on the consent agenda.

The consent agenda was read into the record by Cassidy Welch.

It was moved by Boardmember Paul, seconded by Vice Chairperson Allen, that the consent
agenda items be approved.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES – Wagner–Allen–Glover–Paul–Trendler
NAYS – None
ABSENT– Barrera

Chairperson Wagner declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.

*3.
Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written.

Minutes from the Study Session and Public Hearing meetings held on December 3, 2025.

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 2
{00602347.1}

4.
Take action on the following cases:

*4-a. BOA24-00870. "Medina Station CSP," 46± acres located at the southeast corner of
Southern Avenue and Signal Butte Road. Requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a
Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP). (District 5)

Staff Planner: Cassidy Welch

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

*4-b.
BOA25-00602 "Fulsome Greenbriar," 1± acres located at 955 South Palo Verde
Street. Requesting a Variance to reduce the minimum lot width, a Variance to allow a
detached structure to encroach into the required rear yard setback, and a Special Use
Permit (SUP) to allow a detached structure to exceed the height of the primary building.
(District 5)

Staff Planner: Charlotte Bridges

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

*4-c.
BOA25-00812. "HonorHealth Four Peaks Medical Center CSP," 50± acres located at
1301 South Crismon Road. Requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a
Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP). (District 5)

Staff Planner: Kwasi Abebrese

Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

*4-d.
See: Items not on the Consent Agenda

Items not on the Consent Agenda

4-d. BOA25-00843, "Legacy Recovery Center," 0.5± acres located at 2338 East Minton
Street. Requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a Transitional Community
Residence. (District 1)

Staff Planner: Emily Johnson

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

Deputy City Attorney Kelly Whittemore provided an overview of the Fair Housing Act. She
emphasized that the Act prohibits housing policies or practices that discriminate against
individuals based on protected characteristics, including disabilities. She reminded speakers to
be thoughtful in their comments and clarified that not all community opposition is discriminatory.
She added that the Board may consider valid concerns that had not been addressed previously.

Planner Emily Johnson presented the proposed case number BOA25-00843 and displayed a
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)

Ms. Johnson explained that approval of a SUP was required to allow Legacy Recovery Center
to operate a Transitional Community Residence at the subject property. She stated that the

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 3
{00602347.1}

General Plan designates the property as Traditional Residential with a Sustain Growth strategy
and noted that the site is zoned RS-15, which requires an approved SUP for the proposed use.
She presented a map and images of the proposed site. (See Pages 3 through 7 of Attachment
1)

Ms. Johnson provided an overview of the public notification requirements and confirmed that the
applicant had notified all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed property. She reported
that Mesa Public Schools (MPS) had submitted a letter of opposition to the project. (See Page 8
of Attachment 1)

Ms. Johnson confirmed that the application meets the approval criteria and noted that staff
recommends approval with conditions. (See Pages 9 through 11 of Attachment 1)

Heather Dukes, attorney for the applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See
Attachment 2)

Ms. Dukes highlighted the criteria used to determine the compatibility of the proposed use within
the residential zoning district applicable to the application. (See Pages 18 and 19 of Attachment
2)

Ms. Dukes presented an aerial image of the proposed site, the surrounding property, and the
exterior and interior of the subject home. She pointed out that in response to a request from the
MPS District, the property owners planted trees along the back of the property to provide
additional screening along the back fence. She explained that the residents of Legacy Recovery
Center are not allowed to drive and that all staff park their vehicles in the driveway of the
proposed site, not on the road. (See Pages 20 through 65 of Attachment 2)

Ms. Dukes referenced and displayed images of nearby Airbnb properties to illustrate the variety
of property uses in the surrounding area and the compatibility of the proposed use. (See Pages
66 through 69 of Attachment 2)

Ms. Dukes provided an overview of the services and support offered to residents at Legacy
Recovery Center and reviewed the policies, procedures, and requirements for qualifying for and
remaining in the program. She confirmed that since opening in March 2025, the Arizona
Department of Health Services (ADHS) had not documented any deficiencies. She reported that
Legacy Recovery Center had not generated additional crime in the area and presented
LexisNexis Community Crime Maps and City of Mesa (COM) crime maps. She reviewed the
2024 and 2025 crime reports and noted two public safety calls for medical services for
residents. (See Pages 70 through 90 of Attachment 2)

Ms. Dukes stated that the proposed site would not result in a clustering of this use, noting that
the nearest registered Transitional Community Residence is approximately 1,288 feet away.
She stated that approval of the proposed use would not alter the character of the existing
neighborhood or interfere with normal community activity. She reiterated that the applicant had
submitted a Good Neighbor Policy and had demonstrated that the development standards for
this use had been met. (See Pages 91 through 99 of Attachment 2)

Ms. Dukes referred to the COM Zoning Ordinance and noted that it does not establish
separation requirements from schools. She provided examples of other licensed behavioral
health residential facilities (BHRF) located within 1,200 feet of schools in the COM and in other
neighboring cities, and displayed maps of the locations. (See Pages 100 through 123 of
Attachment 2)

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 4
{00602347.1}

Ms. Dukes discussed the concerns raised in the letter from MPS and stated that the statements
are factually inaccurate and that there is no evidence that this use will cause issues with the
school. She noted that the criteria for approval outlined in the Zoning Ordinance had been met
and asked the Board to consider approval of the proposed SUP.

In response to a question from Boardmember Trendler, Ms. Dukes confirmed that a daycare
center located at 457 W. Nopal Avenue is located adjacent to a licensed BHRF facility. (See
Page 106 of Attachment 2)

Michael Stephan, a Mesa resident was designated as a representative of the N. Chestnut Circle
neighborhood, and was therefore given 10 minutes to speak. He addressed the Board in
opposition to case number BOA25-00843.

Additionally, the following citizens addressed the Board in opposition to case number BOA25-
00843:

•
Christina Frost, a Mesa resident
•
Alex Johnson, a Mesa resident
•
Amy Johnson, a Mesa resident
•
Michele Tereso, a Mesa resident
•
Amanda Masinko, a Mesa resident
•
Kim Foley, a Mesa resident

The Board was presented with several photographs depicting concerns related to the site, and
residents also displayed enlarged photos around the room against the walls for the Board’s
review.

The above speakers offered a series of comments in opposition to the case number BOA25-
00843 including, but not limited to the following:

•
Multiple speakers raised concerns about on-street parking, stating that vehicles associated
with the facility were observed parking along the street and, at times, exceeding expected
limits, contributing to congestion and neighborhood safety concerns.
•
The operator of the Legacy Recovery Center has not demonstrated the ability to
successfully manage this type of use adjacent to a school, based on the record of activity
and behavior at the site over the past year.
•
Concern regarding the operator’s inadequate response to conflict resolution issues.
•
Demonstrated public safety issues including large scale police activity.
•
The proximity of the proposed site to the nearby elementary school.

The following citizens addressed the Board in support of case number BOA25-00843:

•
Sam Kirby, a Tempe resident
•
Barbara Wait, a Mesa resident

The speakers offered a series of comments in support of case number BOA25-00843 including,
but not limited to the following:

•
Legacy Recovery Center has been successful in serving many individuals experiencing
mental health crises. Residents are not admitted to the program until they have been
stabilized prior to discharge from the hospital.
•
Individuals with severe mental illness or those who may pose a risk to the community or
themselves are not accepted into the program and do not reside at this location.

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 5
{00602347.1}

The following citizens submitted a comment card in opposition to case number BOA25-00843,
but did not wish to speak:

•
Stuart Wiwon, a Mesa resident
•
Todd Juedes, a Mesa resident
•
Nicolas Jaudel, a Mesa resident
•
Clark Honton, a Mesa resident
•
Alen Honton, a Mesa resident
•
Joseph Foley, a Mesa resident
•
Jocelyn Condon, a Mesa resident
•
Lois Scale, a Mesa resident
•
Jaclyn Fillerup, a Mesa resident
•
Richard Phelps, a Mesa resident
•
Dennis Decker, a Mesa resident
•
Susan Jarne, a Mesa resident
•
Kathryn Touchet, a Mesa resident
•
Carol Tingey, a Mesa resident
•
Jerry Bitler, a Mesa resident
•
Teresa Bitler, a Mesa resident
•
Lezlee Tingey, a Mesa resident
•
Diane Pence, a Mesa resident
•
Carson Marinouich, a Mesa resident
•
Jeff Ruslt, a Mesa resident
•
Beverly Groberg, a Mesa resident
•
James Omerza, a Mesa resident
•
Chad Bowman, a Mesa resident
•
Emily Kellett, a Mesa resident
•
Kimberly Haws, a Mesa resident
•
Robert Willcox, a Mesa resident
•
John Groberg, a Mesa resident
•
John Misinco, a Mesa resident
•
Carrie Phelps, a Mesa resident
•
Jeffery Kerr, a Mesa resident
•
Tatum Webb, a Mesa resident

Ms. Dukes reiterated that the key consideration before the Board was whether the proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding area. She noted that, following a July Board of Adjustment
appeal in which the use was determined not to qualify as a Family Community Residence, an
appeal to Superior Court had been filed and remains pending. She explained that, after a COM
code compliance complaint identified the need for an approved Special Use Permit, the
applicant filed the current request for the Board’s consideration.

Ms. Dukes stated that no loitering or criminal complaints had been reported to the Mesa Police
Department (MPD) regarding the property. She explained that residents are not permitted to
leave the residence without staff and that an outdoor smoking area, required by ADHS, is
located at the rear of the property and was relocated following concerns from neighbors. She
added that the applicant is seeking to be a good neighbor and is willing to work with MPD, the
Mesa Fire Department, nearby residents, and the school.

Ms. Dukes pointed out that the applicant has an established track record of adjusting its policies
and procedures to address neighborhood concerns. She recalled that, since the facility opened
in March 2025, the applicants had revised their operational policies to address neighborhood
concerns. She stated that group sessions with staff are held during the school's student arrival
and dismissal times to avoid potential interactions, and that parking and visitor policies were
modified to reduce hazards and conflict. She confirmed that the facility now requires 24-hour
staff presence, that staff must accompany residents whenever they leave the home, and that
the facility provides discharge and transportation assistance when residents return home or
transition to alternative living arrangements, ensuring residents are taken directly to their next
destination rather than walking through the neighborhood.

Ms. Dukes advised that BHRF throughout the COM is subject to ADHS requirements regarding
staffing, medication management, and the level of care that may be provided. She added that
similar facilities have been approved in Mesa, including in areas near schools, which
demonstrated that proximity to a school had not previously been considered a basis for denial
by the Board.

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 6
{00602347.1}

It was moved by Boardmember Glover, seconded by Boardmember Trendler, that the Board
enter into an executive session at 7:00 p.m. to discuss case number BOA25-00843, “Legacy
Recovery Center.”

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES – Wagner–Allen–Glover–Paul–Trendler
NAYS – None
ABSENT– Barrera

Chairperson Wagner declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.

a.
Discussion for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body pursuant to
A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3).

(At 7:28 p.m., the executive session adjourned, and the Board reconvened the Public Hearing.)

In response to a request from Vice Chairperson Allen regarding concerns raised by neighboring
residents about the Good Neighbor Policy, Ms. Dukes reiterated the policy’s parameters and
stated that all concerns received are addressed through the complaint resolution process
established in the policy. She reported that additional staff training had been implemented to
help ensure the policy is followed as written. She discussed the implementation of a process for
staff to follow when receiving complaints and noted that cards containing contact information
would be readily available for staff to distribute as needed.

Responding to a question from Chairperson Wagner, Ms. Dukes explained that, before the
implementation of the new policy, when an individual requested additional information about the
program or wished to report a complaint, staff would provide the contact information for the
Legacy Recovery Center's governing body and Chief Executive Officer Richard Miller so the
matter could be addressed directly. She stated that, once a concern is identified, a report
documenting the date, time, and location of the incident must be prepared and is immediately
forwarded to Mr. Miller, who then follows up to discuss the situation and its resolution.

Chairperson Wagner reviewed the criteria outlined in the City Code, and staff recommended
conditions of approval to guide the Board's decision.

Ms. Whittemore clarified that the Board may modify the conditions of approval before taking
action to approve the SUP.

Boardmember Glover discussed the approval criteria and emphasized that the Board’s decision
must be based on whether the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding residential
zoning district. He reiterated that the facility’s proximity to a school was not a factor the Board
was permitted to consider in its deliberations.

Boardmember Trendler stated that a typical neighborhood is generally characterized by longer-
term residential occupancy and noted that, apart from short-term rental situations such as
Airbnb, the proposed use did not appear to reflect a typical residential arrangement. He
questioned whether a transitional housing use would be compatible with a neighborhood
consisting primarily of long-term residents. He discussed concerns regarding the short-term,
transitional nature of the proposed use, noting that typical stays of approximately 30 to 60 days
differ from the longer-term residency common in the surrounding neighborhood. This raised

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 7
{00602347.1}

questions about whether such temporary occupancy is compatible with a predominantly stable,
long-term residential environment.

Chairperson Wagner questioned whether the short-term nature of the use was the determining
factor and whether the request would have been viewed differently if the proposed occupants
were not considered transitional.

Vice Chairperson Allen pointed out that the resident population in a transitional housing setting
turns over more quickly than in a standard apartment lease and expressed concerns about the
transitional nature of the proposed use.

It was moved by Vice Chairperson Allen, seconded by Boardmember Trendler, that case
number BOA25-00843, “Legacy Recovery Center,” be denied.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES – Allen–Trendler
NAYS – Wagner–Glover–Paul
ABSENT – Barrera

Chairperson Wagner declared the motion failed.

It was moved by Boardmember Paul, seconded by Boardmember Glover, that case number
BOA25-00843, “Legacy Recovery Center,” be approved.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES – Wagner–Glover–Paul
NAYS – Allen–Trendler
ABSENT – Barrera

Chairperson Wagner declared the motion failed.

Ms. Whittemore pointed out that, pursuant to Mesa City Code Section 11-66-3(B)(4), a
concurring vote of four Board members is required to render a decision in favor of an applicant
on any matter brought before the Board, and failure to receive four affirmative votes results in
an administrative denial.

Boardmember Paul stated that the City Code is written to align with Fair Housing standards and
to establish the guidelines municipalities are required to follow. She noted that the Zoning
Ordinance reflects those requirements, and that the parameters presented to the Board were
intended to ensure compliance. She expressed her opinion that the proposed use is residential
in nature and that the applicable criteria do not address compliance with nearby schools or
daycare facilities. She added that the Code distinguishes among different types of community
residential uses, including transitional residences and community homes, and expressed her
opinion that the request complies with the criteria the Board has been directed to apply in
determining whether to approve or deny the application. She pointed out that the Code
distinguishes between stays of over one year and those of less than one year, rendering the
length of the stay irrelevant.

Boardmember Glover reiterated that the Board’s responsibility is to determine whether the
proposed use is compatible with the residential uses permitted in that zoning district. He stated

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
January 7, 2026
Page 8
{00602347.1}

that the transitional aspect of the use was a minor component of the analysis, as the length of
residency would not, in his view, alter the overall compatibility of the use.

Boardmember Trendler expressed the view that the length of stay is a significant factor in
evaluating compatibility within a residential area, noting that there are very few instances of
such short-term residency in a typical neighborhood. He stated that, in his view, the analysis
might have been different if the proposed length of stay had been longer. He also noted that the
proposed use involves short-term, transitional stays generally around 30 to 60 days, which
contrasts with the long-term residency pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, raising
concerns about overall compatibility with the area.

Chairperson Wagner stated that she believed the short-term nature of the proposed use is
permitted in the area under consideration.

In response to a question from Boardmember Glover, City Attorney Charlotte McDermott
explained that, under the Mesa Zoning Ordinance, length of stay is a relevant consideration in
evaluating the compatibility of a Transitional Community Residence. She noted that these
residences typically involve shorter tenancy periods than single-family residential uses, which
generally reflect longer-term occupancy. She pointed out that Transitional Community
Residences involve higher resident turnover, are not permitted by right in single-family
residential districts, and require approval through SUP. She added that, in applying the required
approval criteria, particularly compatibility with surrounding residential uses. She explained that
in evaluating compatibility with surrounding residential uses, the Board may consider factors
such as the length of stay of residents. The staff report noted this as a key consideration and
recommended a condition of approval requiring that the average length of tenancy be at least
30 days to help ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.

In response to a question from Boardmember Glover, Senior Planner Jennifer Merrill clarified
that multi-family use is not permitted by right in single-family residential zoning districts.

Ms. Whittemore reiterated that Mesa City Code requires four affirmative votes for the Board to
approve an application. She explained that if the Board is unable to obtain four votes in favor,
the application will result in an administrative denial. She pointed out that the Board may
continue the matter to a future date, either to a certain date or indefinitely, allowing the
application to remain pending until a full Board is present or members have had an opportunity
to reconsider their positions. She added that the Board may also modify the conditions of
approval.

Chairperson Wagner asked if any Board member wished to make a motion or propose changes
to the conditions of approval.

Chairperson Wagner confirmed that the Board did not wish to add additional conditions of
approval and confirmed that case number BOA25-00843, Legacy Recovery Center, failed to
receive the four affirmative votes required for approval and was administratively denied
pursuant to Mesa Zoning Ordinance Section 11-66-3.

5.
Adjourn.

Without objection, the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

Board of Adjustment

BOA25-00843
January 7, 2026
Emily Johnson, Planner II

Request
• Special Use Permit to allow for a
Transitional Community
Residence

Location
• 2338 E Minton St
• East of Gilbert Rd
• South of McDowell Rd
• Located on the north side
of Minton St

General Plan
Traditional Residential
Placetype with a Sustain
Growth Strategy
• Single-family residential is a
principal land use
Traditional Residential
Traditional Residential

Zoning
• Single Residence-15
• Single residence use permitted
• Transitional Community
Residences require approval of
a SUP
RS-6

Site Photos
Looking north from Minton Street

Citizen Participation
• Required to notify property
owners within 150 feet
• Notified property owners
within 500 feet and HOAs,
and Registered
Neighborhoods within 1 mile
• Email from Mesa Public
Schools

Approval Criteria
Per Section 11-31-14(B):
The proposed use will be compatible with the residential uses allowed as of right in the zoning
district; and
The proposed use in combination with any existing community residences, assisted living
homes, and assisted living centers will not result in a clustering of such uses or alter the
residential character of the surrounding neighborhood by creating or intensifying an
institutional atmosphere; and
The proposed use will not interfere with normalization and community integration of the
residents of any existing community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted living centers,
and that the presence of other existing community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted
living centers will not interfere with normalization and community integration of the residents of
the proposed use;

Approval Criteria
Per Section 11-31-14(B):
The applicant has submitted a "good neighbor policy" in narrative form that includes:
(a) A description of acceptable measures to ensure ongoing compatibility with
adjacent uses;
(b)The name and telephone number of the manager or person responsible for
the operation of the facility;
(c) Complaint response procedures including investigation, remedial action, and
follow-up procedures; and
(d)The proposed use complies with all other development standards in this
Chapter.

Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
Meets required findings for a SUP in Section 11-31-14(B) of the
MZO
Staff recommends Approval with Conditions

Board of Adjustment

SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. BOA25-00843
CITY OF MESA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 7, 2026

LEGACY RECOVERY
CENTER TEAM
Dr. Ehab S. Abdallah, Member
Dr. Roland Segal, Member
Richard Miller, Member
2

6
2338 E. Minton St.
2025 Maricopa County Assessor Aerial Photograph
N. 24TH ST.
N. LINDSAY RD.
E. HERMOSA VISTA DR.
N. GILBERT RD.

2025 Maricopa County Assessor Aerial Photograph7

THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and
the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) are jointly
responsible for enforcing the Fair
Housing Act, which prohibits
discrimination in housing on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status or national origin.”

• This Application is submitted on behalf of disabled residents living at Legacy Recovery Center
who are recovering from substance use and alcohol addiction with co-occurring mental health
disorders.
• The residents are handicapped under the FHA:
• “Handicap” means, with respect to a person, (1) a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (2) a record of having
such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment, but such term
does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance (as defined in
section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)). See 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).
• Joint Statement issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
Department of Justice dated November 10, 2016: Clarifies the types of impairments included
within the term “physical and mental impairment.”
• “includes, but is not limited to, diseases and conditions such as . . . drug addiction (other than
addiction caused by current illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism.”
• The residents residing at the Property are not permitted to use controlled substances or
alcohol. The residents are sober. Therefore, they are considered to be persons with
disabilities.
WHO IS CONSIDERED TO BE DISABLED OR HANDICAPPED?

Cannady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass’n, 204 Ariz. at 94, 60 P.3d at 234:
“Equal opportunity gives handicapped individuals the right to choose to live in
neighborhoods of their choice because that right serves to end their exclusion from
mainstream society . . .”
WHERE CAN DISABLED RESIDENTS LIVE?
Steven Polin, Attorney and Fair Housing Expert of 30+ years:
“The FHAA had the effect of guaranteeing the rights of disabled individuals to live in the residence
of their choice within the community.”
“The FHAA does not afford lesser protections to persons with certain disabilities or persons who
may live in a residence for 2 months as opposed to one (1) year. The FHAA protects the rights of
individuals to live in housing of their choice regardless of length of stay. The protections work two
ways, one is to the housing provider, and the other is to the individual residents. It is acknowledged
that in providing recovery housing, a small minority of residents will relapse or will leave the
program for personal reasons. The turnover of residents does not affect the services provided by
the housing provider.”

SPECIAL USE PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS

13
= Legacy Residence is consistent with this part of the definition
= Legacy Residence is not consistent with this part of the definition

FIRST TEST:
The proposed use will
be compatible with
the residential uses
allowed as of right in
the Zoning District.

RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED IN
RS-15 ZONING DISTRICT
(SEE TABLE 11-5-2)
•
Single residence
•
Multiple Residence
•
Assisted Living Facility
•
Boarding House
•
Community Residence
•
Comprehensive Youth Residence
•
Day Care Group Home
•
Manufactured Home Parks
•
Manufactured Home Subdivisions
•
Recreational Vehicle Parks

2025 Maricopa County Assessor Aerial Photograph20
1
2
3

Looking North at 2354 E. Minton St (Adjoining Legacy to the East)
July 27, 2025
1

Looking North at 2338 E. Minton St. (Legacy Home)
July 27, 2025
2

Looking North at 2322 E. Minton St. (Adjoining Legacy to the West)
July 27, 2025
3

LEGACY PARKING IS COMPATIBLE WITH
RESIDENTIAL USES IN RS-15 DISTRICT

66
Legacy Residence
2338 E. Minton St.
2025 Maricopa County Assessor Aerial Photograph
N. 24TH ST.
N. LINDSAY RD.
E. HERMOSA VISTA DR.
N. GILBERT RD.
Airbnb
2313 E. Nora St.
Airbnb
2240 E. Minton St.

68
Airbnb - 2313 E. Nora St.

69
Airbnb - 2240 E. Minton St.

70
LEGACY PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
FILED WITH ADHS

71
LEGACY RESIDENTS LIVE TOGETHER AS A
FAMILY
• Residents at the property are allowed
to engage in the process of recovery
at their own pace, and the residents
live at the Property by choice.
• The emotional and peer support and
bonding experienced by each resident
enhances and promotes recovery from
drug addiction and alcoholism. It is
the equivalent of the type of love and
support received in a traditional
family.

72
LEGACY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A resident shall not be admitted to
Legacy if any of the following are part of
the resident’s history:
• Violent offenses
• Psychotic Symptoms (All patients
MUST be stable to admit)
• Active drug/alcohol use
• Creating disturbances to neighbors
• Destruction of property
• Sexual offenses

73
LEGACY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
• No signage
• No resident parking
• No medical or treatment services
will be provided at the property
that would not typically occur in
a residential setting.
• 24-Hour staff presence

74
LEGACY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADHS
DEFICIENCIES AT 2338 E MINTON.

75
LEGACY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADHS
DEFICIENCIES AT 2338 E MINTON.

76
LEGACY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADHS
DEFICIENCIES AT 2338 E MINTON.

77
LEGACY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADHS
DEFICIENCIES AT 2338 E MINTON.

78
LEGACY HAS NOT GENERATED CRIME IN
THE AREA SINCE OPENING IN MARCH 2025

79
2025
CRIME MAPS

80
2025
CRIME MAPS

81
2025
CRIME MAPS

82
2025
CRIME MAPS

83
2025 CRIME REPORTS

84
2025 CRIME REPORTS

85
2024
CRIME MAPS

86
2024
CRIME MAPS

87
2024
CRIME MAPS

88
2024
CRIME MAPS

89
2024 CRIME REPORTS

90
LEGACY HAD ONLY 2 CALLS FOR MEDICAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES IN 10 MONTHS

SECOND TEST:
The proposed use in
combination with any existing
community residences, assisted
living homes, and assisted
living centers will not result in
a clustering of such uses or
alter the residential character
of the surrounding
neighborhood by creating or
intensifying an institutional
atmosphere.

92
STAFF REPORT, PG 5

THIRD TEST:
The proposed use will not
interfere with normalization
and community integration of
the residents of any existing
community residences, assisted
living homes, or assisted living
centers, and that the presence
of other existing community
residences, assisted living
homes, or assisted living
centers will not interfere with
normalization and community
integration of the residents of
the proposed use.

94
STAFF REPORT, PG 5

FOURTH TEST:
The applicant has submitted a
"good neighbor policy" in
narrative form that includes:
(a) A description of acceptable
measures to ensure ongoing
compatibility with adjacent uses;
(b) The name and telephone
number of the manager or person
responsible for the operation of
the facility;
(c) Complaint response procedures
including investigation, remedial
action, and follow-up procedures;
and
(d) The proposed use complies
with all other development
standards in this Chapter.

96
LEGACY’S
GOOD
NEIGHBOR
POLICY

97
LEGACY’S
GOOD
NEIGHBOR
POLICY

98
LEGACY’S
GOOD
NEIGHBOR
POLICY

99
ANALYSIS OF
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS

ZONING ORDINANCE
COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE
REQUIREMENTS

101
Note: No
separation
requirement
from schools.
Separation
requirements
are intended to
prevent
clustering of
community
residences so
that disabled
residents do not
feel
institutionalized

102
LEGACY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

103
LEGACY ADHS LICENSE
(SUBMITTED TO CITY ON 4/1/2025)

104
LEGACY JOINT COMMISSION APPROVAL

105

106
BHRF at
457 W. Nopal Ave.
(BH9981)
Adjacent to
Learning
Experience
Preschool and
Day Care
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

107
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS
BHRF at
1659 E. Draper
(BH4477)
Within 1,000 ft
of Mesa
Unified School
District
Property

108
BHRF at
5235 S. Axiom
(BH7301)
Within 500 ft
of Queen Creek
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

109
BHRF at
2654 S. Vincent
(BHRF20094)
Approx. 1050 ft
from Gilbert
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

110
BHRF at
7956 E. Plata Ave
(BH3640)
Approx. 400 ft
from Gilbert
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

111
BHRF at
11329 E. Renata
Avenue
(BH3631)
Approx. 1025 ft
from Gilbert
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

112
BHRF at
4005 E. Edgewood
Avenue
(BH2457)
Approx. 600 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

113
BHRF at
2935 E.
Dartmouth Street
(BH5668)
Approx. 570 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

114
BHRF at
7428 E. Hannibal
Street
(BH10736)
Approx. 740 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

115
BHRF at
748 W. 6th Drive
(BH10052)
Approx. 1100 ft
from Mesa School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

116
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES NEAR SCHOOLS
BHRF at
1627 E. Grove
Avenue
(BH10667)
Approx. 1075 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property

117
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES NEAR SCHOOLS
BHRF at
244 N. Extension
Road
(BH5467)
Approx. 725 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property

118
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES NEAR SCHOOLS
BHRF at
141 S. Center St.
(BH5090)
Approx. 520 ft
from Mesa School
District Property

119
BHRF at
108 E. 2nd Avenue
(BH6388)
Approx. 315 ft
from Mesa School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

120
BHRF at
10634 E. Posada
Avenue
(BH5175)
Approx. 840 ft
from Legacy
Traditional School
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

121
BHRF at
11358 E. Sonrisa
Avenue
(BH4097)
Approx. 930 ft
from American
Leadership
Academy
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

122
BHRF at
1533 S. Somerset
Circle
(BH3632)
Approx. 700 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

123
BHRF at
215 S. Power
Road, Bldg 1251
(BH5397)
Approx. 390 ft
from Mesa
Unified School
District Property
EXISTING BHRF LICENSED HOMES IN MESA
LOCATED WITHIN 1200 FEET OF SCHOOLS

FAIR HOUSING ACT
PROTECTS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT AND
EFFECT

125
JOINT STATEMENT BY HUD AND DOJ

THANK YOU
Heather Dukes
602.320.8866
hdukes@dukeslawaz.com
127

128

129

THE OPIOID
EPIDEMIC

Housing is necessary due to the increasing number of individuals recovering from opioid and drug
addiction. The state is experiencing an ongoing demand and need for behavioral health residential
options
A STATEWIDE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

A STATEWIDE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
In July 2019, Governor Doug Ducey issued the “Arizona Opioid Action Plan
Version 2.0” with one of the goals in the plan being directly related to the
supportive environments that sober living homes and behavioral health
residential facilities provide:
“Isolation is harmful to one’s health; lack of social connection is a risk
factor for adverse outcomes, including substance use . . . The previous
Surgeon General has a platform that discussed the Loneliness Epidemic, as
it has been shown that isolation is harmful to one’s health and social
connection and relationships are beneficial.”

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

134
OCT
2024
NOV
2024
DEC
2024
JAN
2025
FEB
2025
MAR
2025
APR
2025
12/16 – Legacy
submits Community
Residence Application
1/06 – City 1st
Review
Comments
Uncontested Events in City Staff Report
Addt’l Key Events in Legacy Appeal Documents
2/04 – Legacy submits
Revised Community
Residence Application
2/05 – Family Community
Residence Approval
2/06 – C of O Issued
3/27 – ADHS
License Issued
4/1 – Copy of
ADHS License
submitted to City
2/11 – Legacy
submits BHRF
license
application to
ADHS
3/28 – Legacy
community mtg
10/2 – 10/9 –
Emails
between
Legacy and
City regarding
use
3/17-3/25 – Complaint by
Mesa Resident; City Emails
to Legacy asking for Info
4/1 – Legacy
submits letter
w/ info to City
4/15 – ZA
Interpretation
4/30 – Appeal
of ZA
Interpretation

135
APRIL 15, 2025 ZA DECISION

136
LEGACY EXHIBIT 13
APRIL 15, 2025 ZA DECISION

137
In July 2021, the City of Mesa adopted
a zoning ordinance text amendment to
establish Community Residence
definitions and zoning requirements.
Between July 2021 and April 15, 2025,
the City determined that all
community residence applications
were family community residences.
Several of these were licensed
behavioral health residential facilities
– the same use as Legacy’s use.
LEGACY PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS

138