Residents press Addison officials over Serenity House recovery home in residential cul-de-sac

Dozens of Addison residents urged village officials on April 7 to provide more information and protections after learning that Serenity House has purchased a single-family property near Foxtail Park and given notice of plans to operate a recovery home there.

Michael Rosenberg, a neighbor, said the house sits next to one of the village’s busiest parks and asked what local regulatory oversight would apply. "What safety protocols exist given the direct access to the park?" he asked, adding that neighbors had learned of the purchase through their own research and sought more transparency from the village.

Mayor Rich Veenstra said the board shares residents’ safety concerns but warned that many relevant restrictions are controlled by federal law. "Most of the regulations that come into play here are federal regulations," Veenstra told the audience, pointing to past litigation in other communities. He cited a case in which a community that tried to block a similar facility was fined after losing in court, and said the village must be cautious about actions that could be found discriminatory.

Village staff described ongoing information requests to Serenity House and said they have not yet received the full details needed to make determinations about occupancy, operations, parking or program rules. "We don't have all the answers," the village manager said. Community-development staff noted there are three other Serenity House-operated residences in town and that inspectors have reviewed calls for service at those addresses, reporting no pattern of significant incidents in recent years.

Police officials said the department increased visible patrols near the property while questions circulate on social media, and some residents said officers have spent extended time parked in the neighborhood to reassure neighbors. The village emphasized that the extra presence was intended to comfort residents and that officers will be redirected if the patrols create greater concern.

Speakers asked practical questions: how many residents would live in the house, whether visitors or staff would use street parking, whether the home would host meetings, and whether occupants might be people released from criminal supervision. Village staff and the deputy police official said Serenity House had told the village the home would be a women-only residence and that occupants are individuals completing substance-abuse treatment, not residents placed there by court order. "This would be a female house, all female house," a staff member said; "these are individuals that have already successfully passed their initial treatment."

Officials told residents that potential remedies for neighborhood complaints depend on the conduct: parking violations, noise or other municipal-code breaches can be enforced, while a blanket municipal ban on a protected class of residents could violate the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. "If the village says to someone who has a drug or alcohol problem that they cannot move into any particular home in any particular location in the village, the village will, in all likelihood, get sued," a village attorney said.

Residents asked for more transparency and offered to select neighborhood spokespeople to meet with village staff and Serenity House representatives. Village leaders urged neighbors to file formal information requests and to meet with staff so concerns could be carried directly to the operator; they also suggested contacting federal representatives if residents wished policy changes at that level.

No formal board decision was made at the meeting. Village staff said they continue to seek additional information from Serenity House and will notify neighboring property owners if a public hearing is required under local zoning procedures.