Kane County rejects drug treatment center outside Campton Hills
The only way a drug and alcohol treatment center opens on Campton Hills' borders will be if a federal court overrules Tuesday's decision by the Kane County Board.
The board voted 15-6, with one abstention and one "present" vote, to deny a zoning application by Maxxam Partners LLC. The group planned to bring a 120-bed, private drug and alcohol treatment center to the former site of Glenwood Academy on Silver Glen Road. The average cost for treatment at the facility would have averaged $1,000 a day.
The high-end nature of the facility did little to address the concerns of Campton Hills residents and other neighbors. The village, as well as the surrounding townships and the local fire district, all passed resolutions denouncing the facility.
Campton Township Trustee Joe Miller said the rural, unlit, two-lane roads in the area of the site simply can't handle a high volume of police and emergency response calls. And the very nature of a drug-treatment center with detox services indicates ambulances will be in high demand at the facility, he said.
"We oppose this not because of the people who will be there; it's because of the nature of the process they are going under," Miller said. "We'd have the same concerns if it were a medical complex, dental complex or nursing home."
Proponents didn't accept that argument. A line of recovering addicts testified about the need for treatment facilities in the local community. Supporters argued the community concerns are based on false and discriminatory fears about all drug addicts being violent criminals.
Robert Buchta, a former Glenwood Academy employee, said the hatred at one public hearing spilled into the parking lot where a local resident called him "trash" and swore at him while making physical threats.
"What I saw there was an anger that was so extreme that it smacks of discrimination against a group of people that need help and want help," Buchta said.
F. Keith Brown, an attorney for the facility, said the county's decision boiled down to a civil rights case. He told the county board they must follow the federal law even if the board doesn't like what it says. The law, Brown said, requires reasonable accommodations for people with the disability of drug addiction.
"I ask you to be reasonable," Brown said. "Vote your conscience that when you took your oath of office that you were going to do the right thing."
Fifteen members of the board had a different definition of the right thing. Those who spoke agreed the area needs more drug treatment facilities. But they didn't believe the proposed site could adequately accommodate such a facility without causing an overly negative impact on the surrounding residents and properties.
"This facility was built as a school; it was welcomed as a school," board member Drew Frasz said. "This zoning change is not in the best interest of the community."
Six county board members, including Maggie Auger, took the exact opposite view. Auger said the treatment facility would be a positive.
"This is a permitted use according to our zoning," Auger said. "This is a perfect location for this type of treatment facility. It will bring tax dollars to our county. It will bring jobs to our county."
Perhaps sensing the possibility of a federal discrimination lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act, county board Chairman Chris Lauzen said that regardless of the vote, the county "set a record for thoroughness and reasonable accommodation" for the zoning petition. He pointed to a pending lawsuit against the county alleging an unfair advantage was given to the treatment facility in the hearing process.
It's unclear what the fate of that lawsuit will be given the county board's vote Tuesday.