Attorney Andrew Tine and property partners presented to the Town of Blackstone Board of Selectmen on Oct. 11 about plans to convert the former 33-bed nursing home at 8 Butler Street into a sober recovery residence.

"They have it under contract. Their intention is to convert this former nursing home ... and their intention is to use it for a sober recovery facility," attorney Andrew Tine told the selectmen, describing the planned use for people transitioning from higher levels of care.

The presenters said the operator plans a long-term residence model with structured rules, intake screening, drug testing and daily or frequent meetings. David Estes, who said he manages other sober homes, described intake and on-site procedures: "If someone comes in and they have [alcohol] on their breath, the procedure is, you know, I'll usually watch them for the night, let them stand on the couch for the night ... if it's a major infraction ... someone might go straight to detox." The applicants said the facility would not provide medical treatment on site but would arrange medical care and that a nurse would visit daily to administer controlled prescriptions.

Why it matters: the applicants asked the town to consider a reasonable accommodation under federal fair-housing law (Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act) to allow the sober residence where local zoning might otherwise restrict it. Town officials and residents were told a negotiated agreement could include conditions — for example MASH certification, a cap on occupants, on-site staffing levels and parking requirements — that would not be available if the operator instead pursued litigation.

The applicants proposed a 33-person cap tied to 33 bedrooms in the building and said they intend to limit occupancy to one person per room and to obtain voluntary certification from the Massachusetts Alliance for Sober Housing (MASH). Tine argued the use is comparable to the building's former nursing-home use and said federal law requires consideration of reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

Residents voiced detailed concerns about public safety, emergency-services demand, parking and the neighborhood character. Several speakers described higher ambulance and police call rates at similar homes elsewhere. Brockton police officer Steve Scobedo said he had responded frequently to two sober homes in that city: "Between the two of them, we've been there 300 times since 02/2014," he said, describing behavioral and medical emergency calls. Neighbors asked for statistics on local EMS and police capacity and for parking and traffic plans; the applicants said the purchase includes an adjacent lot that could be turned into additional parking and that the operator proposes roughly 10 on-site spaces plus additional off-street parking as needed.

Staffing and screening: the applicants proposed one on-site manager, two assistant managers, a senior resident with extended sobriety and weekly visits from an experienced regional operator (identified in the presentation as Bill Bernenberg). The presenters said operators screen prospective residents by application, require drug testing and may exclude people required to register as sex offenders. They also described rules such as curfews, no overnight visitors and mandatory meeting attendance. The presenters gave an example rent figure of about $800 a month, all inclusive (utilities).

Building and code issues: multiple residents flagged the property's condition—attendees who had worked in the building earlier said electrical and other systems would need repair before full occupancy and that parts of the upper floors had been unused because of heat and electrical problems. The applicants acknowledged that the building must meet state and local building- and safety-code requirements before occupancy and that any certificate of occupancy would be contingent on those inspections and repairs.

Process and next steps: the Board made no decision at the hearing. Selectmen said they had taken notes of community concerns and would relay them to town counsel for negotiation of a possible reasonable-accommodation agreement if the applicants pursue that path. The applicants and the town both said negotiated conditions (for example MASH certification, staffing minimums, parking limits and a complaints procedure) are preferable to litigation because a court-imposed result can remove the town's ability to impose conditions.

The meeting closed with no timetable for a final outcome; the applicants said their closing on the property has been delayed while they and the town work through the process.

Ending: Officials encouraged residents to submit written concerns to the town administrator and to sign up for official town notices. The selectmen said they expected further discussion of the proposal at future meetings before any formal action was taken.