Chester Zoning Hearing Board permits two sober‑living homes with conditions, denies place‑of‑worship relief on Third Street

Chester City Zoning Hearing Board on Dec. 18 ruled on four related land‑use applications affecting homes on East 20 Third and East 20 Fourth streets, resolving appeals and requests for relief that prompted weeks of neighborhood testimony.

The board determined that a notice of violation affecting 42 East 20 Third Street was issued in error and required no relief; it denied requested relief for 44 East 20 Third Street, a proposed place of worship. The board also interpreted two Fourth Street properties as group homes and approved limited residential occupancy for each property, subject to conditions including background checks, expanded camera coverage and steps to protect neighbors’ quiet enjoyment.

Why it matters: The decisions address competing claims between residents who said they bought into single‑family, residential blocks and operators of licensed sober‑living homes who argued federal and state fair‑housing law protects residents recovering from substance use disorders. The cases combined local zoning code definitions, state licensing standards and federal disability protections into a single contested record.

What the board decided and why

Third Street: 42 and 44 East 20 Third Street — notice of violation and place of worship The board read into the record that the two applications for 42 and 44 East 20 Third Street had been continued from the Nov. 20 hearing. After public comment and party testimony the board moved that the notice of violation for application 4‑24 (42 East 20 Third Street) had been issued in error and that no relief was required; the motion was carried. For application 5‑24 (44 East 20 Third Street), which sought relief to allow a place of worship at that address, the board voted to deny all requested relief; the motion carried on a 3–1 vote. Written decisions for both applications will be issued within 45 days.

Fourth Street: 55 and 59 East 20 Fourth Street — sober‑living homes The board consolidated hearings on applications 6‑24 (55 East 20 Fourth Street) and 7‑24 (59 East 20 Fourth Street) because the requested relief and neighborhood context overlapped.

Applicant and licensure: John Clifford, who identified himself as Greenhouse Recovery’s founder and CEO, testified that 55 East 20 Fourth Street is owned by John and Emily Clifford and leased to Greenhouse Recovery, and that 59 East 20 Fourth Street is owned by Greenhouse Recovery. He introduced state licensing certificates that indicate the Commonwealth Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs (DDAP) licensed 55 for six residents and 59 for 11 residents; Clifford said his operator currently uses 10 beds at 59 for safety reasons.

Legal argument: Attorney Ken Kynet told the board that residents recovering from substance use disorders are protected under the Fair Housing Act amendments and related Pennsylvania law and that the city zoning definition treats some group homes and treatment centers differently. He argued the zoning code permits a reasonable accommodation process and that, as applied, the city’s cap on unrelated occupants treats a protected class differently unless the city shows justification.

Board interpretation and relief: The board interpreted a sober‑living home to qualify as a “group home” under the city zoning code and granted relief as follows: a special exception to allow six residents at 55 East 20 Fourth Street; and a special exception plus a reasonable accommodation to allow 10 residents at 59 East 20 Fourth Street (the applicant had applied for 11). The board also granted parking variances tied to each approval. Each approval is conditioned on: (1) background checks for all residents; (2) expansion of the properties’ camera systems to cover the entire parcels; and (3) documented controls to ensure the neighborhood’s quiet enjoyment. The board said written decisions would follow within 45 days.

What applicants and neighbors said in testimony John Clifford described Greenhouse Recovery as a Pennsylvania nonprofit that provides communal sober‑living residences for men who have completed formal treatment elsewhere. He said the homes are not treatment centers, they do not provide methadone or medication administration on site, they are licensed by DDAP, and they operate under a peer‑led model with resident assistants and limited paid, part‑time administrative support. “Greenhouse Recovery is a Pennsylvania nonprofit where, we do sober living for people that have completed a treatment program already,” Clifford said in testimony.

Neighbors described a different experience. Angela Wallace, who said she bought her home four-and-a‑half years ago intending a residential neighborhood, told the board, “I purchased the property 4 and a half years ago… I look for a residential area, not a commercial area.” Courtney Asbury said she was offended by what she described as the applicant’s approach to permitting: “I don’t like anything that I do what I want and then I ask for forgiveness later,” Asbury said, and asked the board to weigh neighborhood impact.

Other details from testimony - Licensing and occupancy: DDAP certificates in the record showed 55 licensed for six residents and 59 licensed for 11; the applicant said he operates 59 with 10 beds for safety/egress reasons and at roughly 70 percent typical occupancy. The applicant asked the board to match reasonable accommodation to the DDAP licenses (6 and 11), but the board approved 6 and 10 respectively. - Operations and finances: The applicant said weekly program fees are $175 per resident; at full occupancy that equates to about $4,200 per month at 55 (6 beds) and roughly $7,700 per month at 59 (11 beds). Clifford said the programs run a deficit after expenses and that Greenhouse Recovery uses donations, contracts with Delaware County, and lines of credit to sustain operations. He said DDAP inspects and issues licenses based on bedroom square footage and other safety standards. - Safety and monitoring: The applicant said the homes have wired camera and audio systems, keypad locks, monthly fire drills and written incident procedures, and that resident assistants receive training (first aid/CPR, Narcan, communicable disease, etc.). Neighbors told the board they have concerns about street‑level disturbances, nighttime activity and the cumulative concentration of similar homes on nearby blocks.

Votes at a glance - Application 4‑24 (42 East 20 Third Street): motion that notice of violation was issued in error and no relief required — motion carried (vote not specified on record). Written decision due within 45 days. - Application 5‑24 (44 East 20 Third Street): motion to deny all requested relief for place of worship — motion carried 3–1; written decision due within 45 days. - Application 6‑24 (55 East 20 Fourth Street): board interpreted sober‑living as a group home and granted a special exception to allow six residents, plus a parking variance; approval subject to the conditions listed above; motion carried (vote not specified on record). - Application 7‑24 (59 East 20 Fourth Street): board interpreted sober‑living as a group home and granted a special exception and reasonable accommodation to allow 10 residents (applicant requested 11), plus a parking variance; approval subject to the conditions listed above; motion carried (vote not specified on record).

What happens next The board said it will issue written decisions for all four applications within 45 days. The approvals include conditions that require the applicant to provide documentation (background‑check procedures, camera coverage, and neighborhood‑impact controls) to the zoning officer; compliance with those conditions will be part of the record and enforceable under local code.

Ending Neighbors and the applicant described sharply different views of the same block: neighbors said density and nighttime activity have reduced their sense of safety and home value; the applicant argued licensed, peer‑led sober‑living homes meet a documented community need and are regulated by state licensing and local codes. The board resolved the four pending matters on the record and directed that written decisions be issued within 45 days.