City Council may consider revisiting and possibly revising a controversial ordinance it passed last month that tightened code restrictions on recovery houses, according to Mayor Matt Pacifico.

Council is having second thoughts based on case law brought to council last month by resident Autumn Temple, who was trying to show that at least one type of restriction in the ordinance could cause legal problems for Altoona, like a similar restriction has caused problems for other municipalities, Pacifico said after a council meeting Monday, during which there were reiterated complaints about the measure from residents.

“I think we’ll be talking about this at our next work session for possible repeal and reintroduction at a later meeting,” Pacifico said, when asked at the end of the meeting to comment on Monday’s resident complaints.

Temple cited four federal cases that found that imposing distance requirements between group homes for people with disabilities was discriminatory, based for the most part on the Fair Housing Act, according to written material she distributed at last month’s meeting.

The cases were from eastern Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan.

People with substance use disorder are considered to be disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to online sources.

Revisiting the ordinance would be “wise,” said Marianne Sinisi, who spoke against the new ordinance both last month and Monday.

One of the issues that council has cited as a problem when recovery homes are close to one another is parking.

But parking is an issue all over the city, Sinisi said.

It’s a problem around bars, but council doesn’t seem eager to do anything about that, she said.

Council wouldn’t likely limit the concentration of cancer treatment centers based on parking, she said.

Moreover, at least some recovery homes prohibit residents from owning vehicles anyway, she said.

The city argued that even with vehicle prohibitions for recovery house residents, the presence of the homes create parking problems because they draw visitors

That conclusion is fallacious, according to Sinisi.

Virtually anyone living anywhere draws visitors who have cars, she said.

The reality is that with the ordinance, council is “targeting certain clientele,” said Sinisi, who heads an organization called Families United for Change that advocates for people afflicted with substance use disorder.

Her son died of a drug overdose.

Sinisi also criticized references made last month to “those people,” during discussions of the recovery house ordinance.

“I’m here to say you better open your hearts and minds and educate yourselves,” Sinisi said.

Individuals in recovery houses, including people coming here from out of town to get away from home environments that previously got them into trouble, deserve to be accepted, just like Altoona residents who need to go elsewhere to recover in an environment separate from their home environment that got them into trouble, Sinisi said.

Conflicting opinions

Last month, Pacifico was the only council member who voted “no” on adoption of the recovery house restrictions — for which Sinisi gave the mayor credit Monday.

The recovery house restrictions are likely to hinder the recovery efforts of people with substance use disorder, according to Carol Taylor, who works at a drug rehabilitation facility.

“If we limit their ability to find housing, we’re increasing another problem — we’re increasing the homelessness problem,” Taylor said.

She’s aware that people don’t want such facilities “in their backyards,” Taylor said.

“But if we don’t hold each other up, we all fail,” she said.

The city passed the ordinance to ensure that the recovery homes established here are safe and habitable, City Manager Christopher McGuire said last month.

Some that have been established in Altoona fall far short of acceptable standards, he said.

City officials are also concerned about cases in which recovery house owners who stop receiving agency money for individual clients turn those clients out, leading in some cases to homelessness, Pacifico said last month.

The city has received lots of calls from residents concerned about the recovery houses, McGuire said last month, indicating that those callers feel the homes diminish quality of life in the city.

Council doesn’t want to discriminate against such taxpaying residents, Councilman Dave Butterbaugh said last month.

Council needs to represent everyone, Sinisi said Monday, in response to that assertion.

“I think there are hidden concerns that people aren’t saying out loud,” Taylor said, citing “the stigma that attaches to individuals struggling with substance use disorder.”

It would be good if both sides “had a meeting of the minds” about “the tough situation,” said resident Dan Casey Monday.

Rental amendment

In other business, City Council Monday passed an amendment to the Residential Rental Inspection program that broadens the definition of family, such that situations in which close family members are living in buildings owned by other family members will no longer trigger the fees and inspections mandated by the program. Exemptions are thus “granted for occupants of a structure who are related to the property owner as a parent, adult child, grandparent or sibling,” the amendment states. Applications for family exemptions need to be notarized and taken to the Department of Codes and Inspections.

The issue is “near and dear to my heart,” Pacifico said, explaining that he has lived in a house owned by his father that had to be entered into the rental inspection program, requiring it to be inspected.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.