Assembly panel advances sober‑living rules after lengthy testimony from providers and residents

The Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 15 advanced Assembly Bill 3981, a measure that would subject certain rooming and boarding houses to municipal land‑use rules and require owners or operators of cooperative sober living residences (CSLRs) to secure municipal approvals. Committee members voted to report the bill after more than two hours of testimony from providers and residents.

Supporters of CSLRs and operators of recovery homes said the bill’s proposed zoning and licensing provisions risk shrinking the supply of sober‑living beds in New Jersey. Daniel Regan, representing the New Jersey Coalition of Treatment Providers, told the committee that lack of clear regulatory definitions has already saddled providers with fines and uncertainty. “Despite this argument essentially being overturned, fines were still collected,” he said, describing conflicting enforcement around what the record calls the “Oxford model.”

Providers pinpointed three sets of concerns, including unclear definitions, restrictions on delivering services inside homes and new zoning requirements that could eliminate many potential sites. Pam Capasse, co‑chair of the Garden State Association for Recovery Residences, said municipal barriers will increase legal costs and delay openings. “This bill isn’t going to affect me. It’s going to affect the people I represent and the people I help, and it’s going to have a very negative impact on what we’re already dealing with,” she said.

Residents and people with lived experience also spoke against the bill. Robbie Gedati, co‑chair of GSAR, recounted his own path through cooperative sober living and warned that rules imposing commercial‑grade requirements, large lot size minimums or mandatory paid on‑site staffing would undermine the Oxford‑model homes that federal courts have protected under the Fair Housing Act. A private citizen from Holmdale testified that sober homes are essential to sustained recovery and cautioned that municipal approvals could revive “not in my backyard” opposition.

Proponents of increased oversight said they sought stronger protections and clearer standards; opponents urged lawmakers to rely on the National Association for Recovery Residences standards and to work with front‑line operators to avoid unintended closures. The chair noted she would relay the committee’s recorded opposition and stakeholder concerns to the bill sponsor for further discussion but proceeded with the report. The clerk announced the committee reported the bill.

Next steps: AB3981 was reported out of the Appropriations Committee and will move to the next stage of legislative consideration. Committee members urged continued stakeholder engagement before subsequent floor action.