‘Sober living’ owners take Nether Providence to court
NETHER PROVIDENCE » The owners of a “sober living” facility cited by the township for a zoning violation are appealing the action in federal court.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Dung Lau of Haverford and Providence Recovery House LLC take aim at a decision issued last May 15 by Nether Providence’s zoning board.
They accuse the township of “discrimination in zoning on the basis of handicap or disability” and seek a declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief and damages.
The discrimination includes “refusal to make reasonable accommodation, the lack of any provisions or procedures allowing for housing for persons with disabilities, arbitrary interpretation of zoning laws, unreasonably restrictive zoning policies that have limited the plaintiffs’ ability to provide sober living housing to persons in recovery from addiction to drugs or alcohol,” the suit asserts.
It further states that the township has “threatened to deprive the disabled current and prospective residents of needed housing opportunities.”
The board, after a hearing that involved five evening sessions and many hours of testimony, voted unanimously to deny an appeal by the owners of the facility in the 200 block of North Providence Road of a violation stemming from running the property in a residential area.
It also rejected the owners’ request that they be granted a “reasonable accommodation” under the federal Fair Housing Act to continue operations. That law was designed to ensure municipalities do not arbitrarily exclude such treatment facilities.
Neighbors of the facility had complained to the township that they were unaware that it had begun operations and did not believe it was appropriate use for a home located in a residential neighborhood. During the hearing, township officials and neighbors testified that Lau had not been forthcoming about his use of the property.
Along those lines, the zoning board raised “serious credibility issues” with Lau’s testimony, including his statement that he filled out mortgage documents indicating the home would be used as his residence. Lau testified that he supervises activities at the site but does not live there.
What’s more, the board said it was troubled that had the owners applied for a business mortgage and an absence of testimony that the property was to be used as a residence.
The suit filed in late July counters that while a number of neighbors accused Lau of being “deceitful in not asking for permission to have the use in question at the property,” the zoning ordinance “has no such provisions for seeking approval.”
Concerns about the site increased after an incident there on Sept. 10, 2015. A a 25-year-old from Schuylkill County, Pa., died of a heroin overdose a day after checking in, following his release from a treatment center. That event led to the issuance of the zoning violation.
The facility accepts men ages 25 and older “who are serious about working a program that is sustainable and gets them back on track with their careers, families and personal contentment.” While staying there, clients work during the day and return in the early evening for meditation, dinner and a 12-step meeting.
In addition, female clients living at an apartment in Upper Providence come to the house for support meetings and other activities several nights a week.
The federal court challenge notes that those residing at the facility are required to commit to a minimum three-month stay while pursuing recovery. It also explains that no treatment program activities or clinical services treatment are conducted at the property, and no medication is dispensed by the staff there.
“The sober living residence … functions like a family with communal meals and sober social events participated in as a group and the residents relate to each other as the functional equivalent of a family,” the suit states.
It points out that there is no definition of “family” in the township’s zoning ordinance.
The township made the case during the hearing that the make-up of the facility’s residences in no way constitutes a “family.”