Altoona City Council is considering revisiting a recently passed ordinance that tightens regulations on recovery houses, following concerns raised about potential legal challenges under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ordinance, adopted last month, aims to address safety concerns and quality of life issues related to the concentration of group living facilities, but has drawn criticism from advocates who argue it could discriminate against individuals with substance use disorder.
Mayor Matt Pacifico indicated the council will discuss a potential repeal and reintroduction of the ordinance at an upcoming work session. This reconsideration stems from legal precedents presented to the council by resident Autumn Temple, who highlighted four federal cases where distance requirements between group homes for people with disabilities were deemed discriminatory. These cases originated in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The core of the controversy lies in a provision that prohibits the establishment of new recovery facilities within 1,500 feet of existing ones. Critics argue this restriction unduly limits housing options for individuals in recovery and may violate federal law. People with substance use disorder are legally considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, further strengthening the argument against such restrictions.
Marianne Sinisi, head of Families United for Change, an advocacy organization for those afflicted with substance use disorder, urged the council to revisit the ordinance, calling the current approach “wise.” She challenged the council’s focus on parking issues as a justification for the restrictions, pointing out that parking problems exist throughout the city, including near bars, without similar limitations being considered. She also noted that some recovery homes explicitly prohibit residents from owning vehicles.
Sinisi further argued that the city’s concern about visitors creating parking problems is flawed, stating that virtually anyone, regardless of their living situation, has visitors who drive. She contends that the ordinance unfairly “targets certain clientele.” Her son’s death from a drug overdose fuels her advocacy for more supportive housing options.
The debate also centers on the city’s responsibility to ensure safe and habitable conditions in recovery homes. City Manager Christopher McGuire stated last month that some existing facilities fall short of acceptable standards. Concerns have also been raised about recovery house owners discharging clients when funding from agencies ends, potentially leading to homelessness. Pacifico echoed these concerns, noting numerous calls from residents expressing dissatisfaction with the impact of recovery homes on their neighborhoods.
Councilman Dave Butterbaugh previously stated the council’s intention to represent all residents, including those concerned about the impact of recovery homes on their quality of life. However, Sinisi countered that the council needs to represent *all* residents, including those seeking recovery.
Carol Taylor, a worker at a drug rehabilitation facility, warned that limiting housing options for individuals in recovery could exacerbate the homelessness problem. She emphasized the importance of mutual support, stating, “If we don’t hold each other up, we all fail.”
The ordinance also includes broader updates to regulations on halfway houses, rooming and boarding houses, and institutionalized housing, adopted in January 2026. Existing facilities are grandfathered but will need to comply with building and fire codes, particularly if there is a change in occupancy. The city council voted 5-1 to adopt the licensing ordinance, with Pacifico casting the dissenting vote.
In a separate matter, the City Council passed an amendment to the Residential Rental Inspection program, broadening the definition of “family” to exempt close family members living in properties owned by other family members from inspection fees and requirements. This change was personally significant to Mayor Pacifico, who previously had a property owned by his father subject to the inspection program.
The potential revision of the recovery house ordinance reflects a growing awareness of the legal and ethical complexities surrounding housing for individuals in recovery. The council’s upcoming work session will be a critical juncture in determining the future of these facilities and the city’s approach to addressing the needs of its vulnerable population.
