Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sober Living Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe council finalizes ordinance to regulate sober living homes after wide public comment
Summary
The Monroe City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 12,277 to establish definitions and rules for sober living (recovery) homes, grandfathering existing homes and allowing one year for compliance with certain bulk provisions after robust public testimony raising Fair Housing Act concerns.
The Monroe City Council on Oct. 28 unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 12,277, establishing definitions and regulatory guardrails for sober living and recovery residences in the city. Councilmember Mr. Harvey sponsored the measure and members said the ordinance aims to balance neighborhood protections with support for recovery housing.
The ordinance’s passage followed a lengthy public hearing in which operators, residents and recovery advocates urged caution about language that, they said, could conflict with federal fair-housing protections. Roy Baas, a resident, referenced the federal case Oxford Houses v. City of Baton Rouge and warned that zoning restrictions can run afoul of the Fair Housing Act; he said, as drafted, the ordinance “would require all family homes in the City of Monroe to be at least 650 feet apart,” a concern echoed by other speakers.
Several sober living operators and residents described how recovery housing provides stability and opportunities. Erin Norred, an operator, spoke about operating three sober living homes and said the residences were vital to recovery. Joe McLean, who said he has been clean for two years while living in a Monroe sober living home, asked the Council not to enact rules that would force responsible homes to close.
Shawn Eves, a licensed addiction and mental-health professional, said she initially thought the ordinance seemed protective but asked the Council to “pause” and work with operators and professionals to reword problematic provisions. Multiple speakers asked for a collaborative revision process rather than an immediate imposition of distance-based restrictions.
City Attorney Brandon Creekbaum told the Council the ordinance would make sober living a permitted use in the zoning code rather than requiring operators to seek special accommodations. He said the ordinance includes occupancy limits and bulk provisions, and that existing homes would be grandfathered: operators now in lawful operation would not be subject to the new distance requirement, which would apply only to new homes. Creekbaum also explained there would be a one-year period to become compliant with bulk provisions while occupancy limits would take effect immediately.
Councilmembers said the ordinance was intended to bring structure and accountability, not to shut down existing homes. Ms. Woods (Councilmember) and Mr. McFarland (Chairman) said they supported the motion while leaving open the possibility of later amendments based on stakeholder input. Mr. Harvey said he would support future revisions if community input identified needed changes.
The ordinance passed unanimously. The Council did not adopt a separate pause or delay; instead it approved the ordinance with the safeguards and grandfathering described by City Attorney Creekbaum. The Council indicated willingness to continue discussions and refine language in future meetings.
