Pross Road in Towamencin.
Neighbors continue to ask questions about a sober living house in a Towamencin neighborhood, and township officials say they’re still working to get answers.
Talks continued last Wednesday night about “Pross House for Women,” a facility that neighbors say remains to be a concern.
“I certainly have fears, based on my own experiences, and not simply stigma,” said Catherine Cikanovich, a neighbor on Pross Road
In early April neighbors first turned out to the township to voice concerns about the house, a facility operated by Sunlight of the Spirit House, an Eagleville-based operator of sober living houses for individuals who have completed treatment and wish to live in a sober environment.
Sunlight drew similar feedback from residents when they sought approvals for a home on Montgomery Avenue in North Wales throughout 2015, that town’s zoning board denied their request for more than three residents in the home, prompting Sunlight to file a lawsuit against the town in 2016. Sunlight has also worked with a similar Quakertown-based recovery foundation to develop standards for such facilities across the state, and Sunlight currently lists one home in Lansdale and two in Hatfield.
Flier for Sunlight of the Spirit House’s planned “Pross House for Women” facility in Towamencin. (Photo via Facebook: Sunlight of the Spirit House)
Cikanovich told the township supervisors on Wednesday night that she’s had family members experience addiction and try treatment at similar facilities: “I try to imagine the life that I wish for those closest to me, what I feel I would want for them when considering where I stand,” she said, before voicing her worries about the facility.
“I don’t wish to expose my children to that constant flow of unknown people in our neighborhood. My children are my top priority. I am concerned with the nature of transient people. I do find comfort and safety in knowing that my neighbors should be registered to a home. I am not comfortable not knowing who is coming and going in this home, at such a high rate,” she said.
The neighborhood has no sidewalks, so her children play on scooters or bikes in the street, thus a concern about traffic generated by the house, and the number of occupants also brought a worry, Cikanovich told the board.
“What I wish for those close to me in sober living, in life, is dignity. I would wish for them to have their own space. Not all addiction is the same, and to put that number of women, from all different backgrounds, is stifling in that size home,” she said.
“I know that (in) this period of time, they are quite vulnerable. I have watched sober and sober sponsors alike relapse, and I feel that there was no failsafe to catch them. And we just turn them loose, and watch the cycle over again. I recognize the addiction epidemic, and the need for sober living homes, but I feel there are ways to combat this in a safer and more collaborative way,” Cikanovich said.
Another consideration Cikanovich brought to the board: what if their plan doesn’t work?
“What happens if this house fails like other women’s homes have, and this turns into a male house? Are those that aren’t concerned now, concerned then? Because that’s a likely outcome,” she said.
Cikanovich then asked each of the supervisors where they stood on the project, prompting board Chairman Chuck Wilson to ask solicitor Bob Iannozzi to give an update on the township’s response and recent actions.
Township still seeking info
“The current use of the property implicates Fair Housing Act and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. And so by virtue of that, while the township readily acknowledges that this may be an unpopular use, that in and of itself does not warrant the township ignoring its requirements under federal law. Toward that end, we need more information,” Iannozzi said.
“Your concerns are being heard, and they’re being acknowledged. But the goal here, from the township’s perspective, is to ensure that this property can be utilized like any other single family dwelling, irrespective of whether it’s a sober house or not, and that they’re held to the same accountability as any other family in the development,” he said.
Under the federal housing act, the attorney continued, the township has to determine the number of occupants, whether they are “handicapped, as determined by the Act,” and need to get that information from the operator.
“We’ve sought that information, we’re in the process of scheduling a meeting, and I’m going to compile all of that information,” Iannozzi said.
The township will also need to determine if the occupants are going to be “living together in that home as a single family unit, sharing the chores and obligations of the home,” and need info about how the occupants would travel to and from the home, and how long they would stay.
“We don’t have any information relative to this. So I would just caution people not to have contempt before investigation, or concern before investigation. The township is on this. We’re going to ensure that everybody, including the township, complies with applicable law,” he said.
“When and if it’s determined that they can meet the tests under the Fair Housing Act, then we have to look to what reasonable accommodations they’re seeking, because they are entitled to that as well. And that’s where we have to begin that process. That reasonable determination process may take them from three unrelated people, to more. I don’t know if we get to 14, they’re going to have to explain why they need a reasonable accommodation for 14 occupants in the home. But there’s a lot of information that we need to compile, to see if they can meet their requisite burden under federal law,” Iannozzi said.
If the operator does not meet those tests, he said, “that will likely result in a zoning violation notice being sent to the occupants,” then an appearance before the zoning hearing board. As of Wednesday night, the attorney added, the township and occupant will have to meet a balance between the rights and needs of that property owner, those who live there, and of the neighbors.
“We’re going to strike the balance as best we can, and if we cannot, we’re going to end up before the zoning hearing board,” he said.
‘Not willing to back down’
Valerie Hannigan of Pross then voiced similar concerns, saying she’s spoken with the owner of the house and seen their interior setup firsthand.
“I don’t know how six women, from six variable areas, (with) six different types of addiction, are going to be able to communicate, and get along, and deal with what they have to deal with, in one room,” she said.
“They are not willing to back down from the 14 women, and they really don’t give [expletive] what we think, they don’t care, they’re going to fight for this,” Hannigan said.
Her son passed away from an overdose in 2020 after attempting treatment in at least four similar sober houses, she told the supervisors, “and overdosed in every one of them.”
“So I am well aware of what my neighbors are going to see, and how this is going to play out. If this is a success, that’s great. But if it’s not, the neighbors, and the women living in that home, are going to pay the price.”
She then questioned the price of $250 per person per week to live in the house listed on a flier on their Facebook page, and questioned whether the occupants would be able to earn enough to afford that rate, while also attending meetings and rebuilding relationships with their families.
“All of this, combined with 14 different personalities? To me, I don’t see how that could be a success story for anybody,” she said. “From a mother who lost a child to overdose, this is not going to work for them, or my neighbors.”
‘A world of struggling people’
Todd Omohundro of Pross echoed those comments, saying he once had a family member with similar struggles.
“It is a world of manipulation, it is a world of struggling people, and it is a world of people on the edge. We all know this. And to bring that to Pross Road is very upsetting to all of us,” he said.
“Some of these women will make a valiant effort to improve their lives. Some won’t. They could still be buying drugs from Philadelphia. And the possibility of that entering our neighborhood, is not something we want at all,” he said.
Omohundro then cited recent reports of stolen dirt bikes in nearby municipalities that were linked to what he called “major criminal organizations” based in Philadelphia, and warned the board: “to think that criminal organizations won’t come to Pross Road is very naïve.”
And Tom McClennen of Pross asked how the business could operate in a residential home: “Is it allowed, or is it not allowed? It’s a business operating out of a house. Where are you on that? You must know if that’s allowed.”
Iannozzi answered by noting that “the federal litigation over this issue is significant,” and said the federal laws create “a protected class, to which certain considerations have to be afforded.”
“If, we need to analyze it from the perspective that the occupants, if they are seeking recovery, are a protected class, they are handicapped under the Fair Housing (Act). Then we have to analyze, how are they operating within the house? It’s a specific test, that case law supports what to consider, and how to weigh those criteria,” he said.
“But if it’s determined that they’re operating as as single family dwelling, they are a residential single family dwelling within our code, entitled to reasonable accommodation. And therein lies the discussion that we have to have, once more details are provided, as to what constitutes reasonable accommodation,” Iannozzi said.
McClennen then asked what would happen if he started a home business, using a different example.
“If I wanted to start changing oil on people’s cars, or repair their cars in my driveway, and have all kinds of people coming, and I’m creating a business on Pross Road, am I allowed to do that?”
“No, but you’re also not a protected class,” the attorney replied, and added that he was in the process of setting up a meeting with the owner and her attorney to get more information, and hopes to provide another update at the board’s next meeting.
“The goal is to get as much information as we can, to make our determinations as to whether or not the Fair Housing Act is implicated. And if it is, we have to go one way. If it isn’t, it could go the route of enforcement,” he said.
During a visit to the Pross House Friday morning, The Reporter spoke to two female tenants of the house, both of whom declined to comment. A pet service dog was also present. Sunlight representatives did not respond to specific questions about the Pross Road house after the initial resident reaction in early April, nor about the comments made Wednesday night.
The most recent posts on their Facebook page don’t directly address the facility, but include an inspirational quote attributed to Mother Theresa: “People are unreasonable, illogical and self-entered. Love them anyway…what you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway…Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.”
Towamencin’s supervisors next meet at 7 p.m. on May 8 at the township administration building, 1090 Troxel Road. For more information visit www.Towamencin.org.
This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between North Penn Now and The Reporter. To read more stories like this, visit www.thereporteronline.com.
