Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press state over a sober-living residence they say is not operating as intended
Summary
Residents and borough officials told the council they have asked state authorities to investigate a nearby sober-living residence they say lacks intake screening and is straining local police resources; borough officials said enforcement authority rests with the state.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raised concerns during public comment that a sober-living residence in Bellmawr is operating outside the standards the borough expects and that the problem is burdening local police.
At a public-comment exchange, a resident asked whether the state had acted after prior borough inquiries. An official on the dais said the borough has met with state lawmakers and filed documentation asserting the facility is not functioning as a sober-living residence—specifically, the official said the facility "doesn't even ask them whether they have a drug or alcohol problem," and that borough officials have provided the state with police call logs and interviews to support that assertion.
The council member/official said the borough's concern is not that sober-living facilities are permitted in residential zones (state law permits them), but that a facility permitted under that status must operate consistent with regulations. "The problem is not whether a sober living facility is permitted. It's why aren't you acting like one?" the official said, urging continued pressure on state regulators.
Officials told residents that enforcement authority over operation and licensing lies with the state agency and that the borough can enforce only certain local requirements such as fire inspections. The council and police said calls and police responses tied to the facility had been compiled for the state's review.
Next steps: borough officials said they will continue to press the state, provide evidence and seek clarity on enforcement guidance; no local enforcement action or ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting.

