During the public commentary, residents expressed deep concerns over the placement of sober living homes near schools and densely populated neighborhoods. Sharon Coaches, a resident, criticized the local government for approving a sober living house near a preschool without sufficient oversight, highlighting the potential risks associated with addiction relapse. She recounted her efforts to address these issues with local authorities, emphasizing a perceived lack of response and enforcement of safety measures. Coaches lamented the silence from officials regarding these risks, arguing that the borough’s inaction constituted a failure to protect children, who are considered a protected class under New Jersey law.

Support for regulating the placement of sober living homes was echoed by other residents, including Steven Kosovich, who advocated for a municipal ordinance to establish spacing requirements between these facilities and sensitive areas like schools. He suggested a minimum distance of 1,000 feet to prevent clustering, a measure already adopted by other municipalities. Kosovich emphasized the need for strict licensing compliance to ensure proper oversight and inspections of such homes, referencing existing state laws that impose penalties for unlicensed operations.

The meeting also saw input from individuals residing in or operating sober living facilities. Mark Manani, owner of DB House Sober Living, defended his properties, asserting that they comply with legal standards and maintain a zero-tolerance policy for substance use. He clarified that his homes are not government-funded and do not contribute to neighborhood crime, contrasting their residents with those using substances. Manani shared his experience of hosting recovery meetings and highlighted the communal support fostered by sober living homes, urging the community to recognize the broader issue of addiction.

Residents like Lewis Cthine, a tenant in a sober living home, reinforced the positive impact of these facilities. Cthine shared his recovery journey and stressed that individuals in sober living are dedicated to bettering their lives and supporting one another. He urged the community to look beyond misconceptions and recognize the rehabilitative purpose of these homes.

Amidst these discussions, the council faced calls for increased transparency and communication about the approval and management of sober living facilities. Some residents expressed frustration over the lack of awareness regarding the number of such homes in Elmwood Park and questioned who was responsible for their establishment. Concerns about property values and the impact on homeowners were also raised.

In response to these concerns, a proposal to create a committee to investigate ordinances related to sober living facilities was put forward. This committee would aim to address resident concerns while ensuring that the homes serve their rehabilitative purpose effectively. The proposal received support from council members, though a decision was deferred until after the reorganization meeting in January.

In addition to discussions about sober living homes, the meeting included expressions of appreciation for outgoing Councilman Daniel Golabek. Golabek was recognized for his leadership and contributions to the community, with the Mayor presenting him with an engraved gavel. Council members and residents alike commended Golabek’s dedication over his nine-year tenure, particularly highlighting his role in community projects and infrastructure improvements.

The council also addressed several legislative matters, including the passage of a bond ordinance for storm and sanitary sewer improvements and amendments to handicap parking and recreational transport vehicle regulations. These ordinances passed unanimously, with minimal public input.