Planning Board recommends ordinance establishing reasonable‑accommodation procedure for certified recovery residences

The Town of Highland Beach Planning Board on Dec. 11 recommended that the Town Commission adopt an ordinance establishing a procedure for reasonable accommodations for certified recovery residences.

Town attorney Ruben told the board the ordinance implements statutory time frames and procedures required by state law for applications from certified recovery residences. He said the state certification program is voluntary and that certification requires a separate administrator credential. Ruben said the ordinance contemplates hearings before a magistrate (code or another appointee) ‘‘because these become very political’’ and a magistrate can make the required findings without a highly politicized public hearing.

Ruben emphasized federal protections that drive the requirement: ‘‘under the Fair Housing Act and under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a person undergoing treatment for substance abuse is considered disabled,’’ he said, and such residents can seek reasonable accommodation from local rules.

Board members asked whether a certified recovery residence is treated as a business; Ruben said the residential component is not considered a business unless treatment services are performed on‑site. He also confirmed that homeowners‑association or condominium association rules remain enforceable and are not superseded by the proposed town procedure.

Members raised concerns about concentration of residences, corporate ownership, and public‑safety risks. One board member warned that ‘‘in a lot of these rehab centers, you have drug dealers right outside the door.’’ Ruben replied that public‑safety problems would be handled as criminal matters and law‑enforcement issues, and that the town can impose limited monitoring conditions consistent with privacy laws if the town ever pursues conditions tied to certification.

Ruben noted constraints from Senate Bill 180 (effective August 2024), which limits local governments from adopting more restrictive land‑use changes; he said litigation is pending seeking to enjoin enforcement of SB 180. The board’s action was a recommendation to the Town Commission; it did not adopt the ordinance on first reading.

A board member moved to recommend the ordinance as presented. The motion was seconded and the board voted by voice in favor.

Clarifying details: the proposed procedure would require applicants to document certification and administrative credentials, and to state why an accommodation is necessary. The ordinance would direct the matter to a magistrate for decision and would not permit local code to override private association occupancy restrictions.