Committee reports bill subjecting certain sober living homes to local land‑use rules amid operator opposition

Assembly Bill 3,981, which would subject certain rooming and boarding houses to municipal land‑use regulations and require operators of cooperative sober living residences (CSLRs) to submit approvals with licensure applications, received extensive testimony on May 15, 2025 before the Appropriations Committee and was reported out of committee.

Multiple operators, recovery‑residence advocacy groups and a private citizen testified in opposition or with concerns. Daniel Regan, representing the New Jersey Coalition of Treatment Providers, said existing Class F boarding‑home regulations and inconsistent municipal enforcement have already produced confusion and enforcement actions. He called for clearer definitions and standards, noting past fines and the lack of a clear regulatory definition for the commonly referenced "Oxford model." Regan warned that allowing local zoning restrictions to apply could exacerbate a shortage of recovery beds.

Speakers from the Garden State Association for Recovery Residences (GSAR) and operators said state licensure initially centralized oversight to avoid local "not‑in‑my‑backyard" (NIMBY) barriers and the time and expense of repeated zoning hearings. Pam Capasse, co‑chair of GSAR, testified that rolling approval back to municipalities could "set us back" by requiring expensive local approvals and increase legal and real‑estate costs for operators. Another witness said municipal rules in Freehold Township and Jackson Township impose requirements — large setback distances, minimum driveway/parking standards and commercial septic certifications — that effectively eliminate eligible housing stock.

Operators told the committee that some forms of sober living are social‑model residences with resident governance and no paid staff; witnesses distinguished those from higher‑level facilities that provide clinical services and medication management. Several speakers cited federal Fair Housing Act litigation — including a reference to City of Edmonds v. Oxford (1995) — that limits municipalities' ability to exclude people in recovery from single‑family housing.

Supporters of CSLR licensing said the bill, as written, risks reducing available beds and raising costs by requiring local approvals and legal fees for zoning. Witnesses described added legal and time costs (one witness cited $15,000 in legal fees and a 3–6 month delay for zoning approvals) and said landlords would be less willing to lease properties for recovery housing.

After extended testimony the committee voted to report the bill. The committee record shows members heard the concerns and the chair indicated she would communicate opposition to the bill’s sponsor, but the committee still reported A3981. The transcript does not show the sponsor making changes during the hearing; additional amendments or follow‑up discussions were encouraged by committee members.