EAGLE MOUNTAIN — It wouldn't matter if it were an addiction treatment center, a hamburger stand or a garage-based welding operation.

Any commercial business in Eagle Mountain's Westview Heights neighborhood is a problem, neighbors say.

Which is why they asked for, and were recently granted, a temporary restraining order against The Ark of Eagle Mountain, a live-in treatment facility for individuals recovering from mental health issues, or chemical or behavioral addictions.

"If one (commercial entity) is allowed, what about others?" asked attorney John Richards III, who represents the concerned neighbors. "The flavor of the community has changed. We want the expectations of my clients to be upheld. It's supposed to be noncommercial, single-family."

Richards argued Thursday in 4th District Court that, as a business, The Ark of Eagle Mountain poses not only traffic and safety hazards to the new neighborhood, but it lowers property values and breaks the established covenants, conditions and restrictions — or CC&Rs — of the area.

"It's a long way (to Eagle Mountain)," Richards said. "You buy out there for a certain quality of life. That's what (neighbors) are concerned about."

David Dunn testified Thursday that he purchased his home because of the CC&Rs, which he felt would protect his home against encroaching commercial entities and provide a safe place to raise a family.

However, Scott Berry, attorney for The Ark and its owners, questioned if Dunn had actually experienced any traffic or safety problems due to the five clients already in the home.

Dunn said no, he hadn't, but he was worried about the future impacts, especially if The Ark were allowed to expand to its full potential of eight clients.

Berry argued against the temporary restraining order, saying the financial damage to his clients if such an order were granted would be far more severe than any damage to the neighbors caused by The Ark continuing to operate.

He also argued that the neighbors' concerns were almost hypothetical and not strongly documented.

The underlying issue, though, is Berry's belief that the homeowners' association rules are violations of the Fair Housing Act, which prevents discrimination against individuals with disabilities — such as those in recovery.

Stott dismissed that argument, saying he didn't believe a Fair Housing Act argument could overrule the obligations the property owners agreed to when they bought the land.

Stott also rejected an argument that The Ark constituted a home-based occupation, as narrowly allowed by the neighborhood's CC&Rs.

"This court cannot make a stretch that the defendant is using the home for a home occupation," Stott ruled, adding that the owners didn't even live there. "The property in question is being used, specifically focused, and designated for a business use."

Despite the temporary restraining order being granted, Stott allowed The Ark to continue business with five clients, after Richards offered a compromise that they would accept a continuation of the status quo during the litigation process.

E-MAIL: sisraelsen@desnews.com