Madison County supervisors hear competing claims over zoning for ‘The Refuge’ recovery home

Madison County Board of Supervisors convened a public meeting in which hours of testimony focused on whether a gospel-centered residential addiction recovery program called the Refuge complies with county zoning. County officials repeatedly told the crowd no final decision would be made at the meeting and explained the administrator’s decision is appealable.

County Attorney (unnamed) told the board that the zoning administrator’s role is limited to reviewing the county ordinance and permit for compliance and that any determination by the administrator may be appealed to the board of adjustment. "There hasn't been a decision about that permit yet," the County Attorney said, underscoring that the supervisors were not taking a final zoning vote at the session.

Ryan Hobart, introduced as Madison County’s zoning administrator, told the board he is reviewing whether the refuge fits the zoning code and that an appeal process would follow any administrative decision. "My job is to look at the red book there and determine whether what they are doing fits within that or does not," Hobart said.

Neighbors who live near the proposed site cited safety and notice concerns. A resident who identified themself in the transcript as "Lehi" said the refuge property is a quarter mile from their home and alleged the program failed to notify adjacent households and that staff had misrepresented outreach. The resident also recounted a separate alleged incident in which a person associated with the refuge was dropped at a hotel and required ambulance service; the claim was presented as testimonial evidence by neighbors.

Several residents and medical professionals raised emergency-response concerns tied to the site's rural location. Registered nurse Mary Catherine Bigelow said rural EMS response could take about 30 minutes on a gravel road and questioned whether a residential program charging fees should be classified as a charitable institution under county code.

Supporters, including family members of people who said they recovered after attending the Refuge, urged supervisors to preserve local recovery capacity. Multiple speakers credited the program’s 6–12 month residential model and described personal recoveries, community service by participants and local employment partnerships. "We have never claimed to be a medical facility," Ben Funkhouser, executive director of the Refuge, said, adding the program operates as a gospel-centered residential discipleship ministry and charges program fees rather than accepting insurance.

Refuge board member Jason Grewell said the program had previously been told it was in compliance, that a recent email altered that position and that the organization had invested donated funds and completed work in reliance on earlier guidance. "The facts are since 2020, we have had no police incidents at our property," Grewell said, presenting incident history as evidence that the program has not produced the safety problems some neighbors fear.

Speakers on both sides asked the board to either help clarify the county’s ordinance or let the formal appeal process run its course. Several callers urged the county to consider updating zoning language to reflect residential recovery programs, noting the county code had not been modernized in decades.

No formal zoning vote or change of classification was recorded at the meeting. The board moved on to its resolutions agenda after the presentation and public comment; the administrator's pending review and any appeal to the board of adjustment remain the next procedural steps for the Refuge’s permit.

Provenance: County Attorney remarks and explanation of appealability; Ryan Hobart's description of his role; multiple public commenters giving testimony both critical and supportive; presentations by Jason Grewell and Ben Funkhouser describing program operations, fees, applicant screening, partnerships and planned building work.