By Matthew McLaughlin
The battle over a sober house on 31 Wilton St. took a new turn when city officials and residents met at the Visiting Nurses Association on Lowell Street Monday. The issue was no longer about the existence of the house, but rather a lack of sprinklers regulated by zoning laws.
The Somerville Fire Department sent a letter to Michael Cartolano and Russell Colombo, co-owners of the sober house and explained that since there are 12 unrelated individuals living in the house, the owners were required to install sprinklers in the building. If they do not complete the task within 90 days, they can face a fine of up to $1,000 per day, with each day constituting a separate violation.
Bruce T. MacDonald, attorney for Cartolano and Colombo, said the house will reduce the number of residents to 10, five to each floor, which should eliminate the need for sprinklers. He also argued that the sober house is considered an apartment and not a lodging house.
“Were the interpretation otherwise,” MacDonald said in a written response to Kelleher, “Somerville would have to require automatic sprinklers in every two-family house that had three unrelated residents in each apartment, and in every three-family house that had two unrelated residents in each apartment.”
MacDonald also sited the Federal Fair Housing Act, saying that every city and town including Somerville is expected to provide housing for people with disabilities. This includes individual with substance addictions. He requested under the act that the city allow them one additional person per floor. Zoning laws allow four unrelated individuals to reside together in one unit.
Alderman at Large William A. White, Jr. questioned the merit to MacDonald's argument and said the city will hold an executive session for litigation.
“It is fair to say that it is an argument that will be looked at,” White said. “We assure the people that we will leave no stone unturned in regards to proper procedure.”
The fight over the sober house, which advertises itself as Sober Surroundings, began in February when residents complained to the city about drug deals, public drinking and hypodermic needles spilling out from the home and into the street. City officials argued that the owners did not have proper permits to have a sober house, but later claimed to be “hamstrung” by the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Although drug and alcohol abuse incidents were cited by concerned neighbors, Police Chief Anthony Holloway said there have been no serious incidents since he took over the department in January. The police increased patrols in the neighborhood and have not encountered any incidents. A resident of the house was arrested on Feb. 25 for several previous warrants. Two weeks later residents reported an individual involved in suspicious activity. Police investigated and approached an individual who claimed 31 Wilton St. as his residence, but it turned out to be nothing, Holloway said.
“As far as a police standpoint, there are no concerns from us,” he said.
George Landers, Superintendent for Inspectional Services Division, said the concern wasn't simply over a sober house, but rather the lack of state licenses.
“With a house like this, the fear is if something happens, where do we go?” Landers said. “And when houses like this pop up, people get scared.”
Joe Lynch, who lives near the sober house, asked MacDonald why the owners do not register the sober house with the state.
“Why would you not want to be licensed by the state?” he asked. “Why would they not make it easy on themselves?”
Macdonald said the house is not a traditional halfway house, but rather a residence for recovering addicts to get their lives together.
“Why would anyone living in their own home want to be licensed by the state?” he replied.
White also raised concerns about rent for the sober house. The house charges a weekly rate of $135 as well as a $250 fee upon entering the house. This can amount to over $60,000 a year.
Macdonald insisted the sober house was not taking advantage of its residents. He said he has represented sober houses for many years and would not represent an organization involved in underhanded activities.
“I am not going to stand by and let people take advantage of recovering addicts,” he said.
City regulations state "no more than 4 unrelated individuals can live in one apartment". Sober Surroundings cannot have the ten that MacDonald wants. Sober Surroundings must bring the amount of residents down to eight, four on the first floor unit and four on the second floor unit. They do not want to do this. Why? At eight total, there would be seven paying residents and one non paying supervisor. This would mean a yearly rental income of $49,140 (7 x $135 based on full occupancy) which does not include the admittance fee. At ten total this would give them nine paying residents and one non paying that would mean an income of $63,180 (again based on full occupancy with 9 x $135). The financial windfall to this is the $250 admittance fee. With addictions being hard to kick the turn over rate is the key to the money making aspect of these "Sober Houses". If I am wrong tell me where I erred and convince me that I am wrong by registering and licensing this facility. If licensed real guidance, monitoring and other benefits would have to take place. Therefore decreasing their profits, operating in the red and then having to seek state and federal funds.
Posted by: Bob Langill | May 23, 2008 at 07:44 AM
I would like to thank Matt McLaughlin and the Somerville News for the continuing coverage. There is one factual error I would like to correct in the above story.
The multiple public safety incidents at 31 Wilton Street were first brought to the attention of Ward 5 Alderman Sean O'Donovan, then acting police Chief Bob Bradley and Inspectional Services in the fall of 2006. Police records indicate at least three calls for assistance for possible drug related overdoses. Multiple calls have been made to the police by neighbors for possible drug transactions and for assistance to dispose of hypodermic needles found in front of and in the vacinity of the property. Police and resident accounts of the exact number of calls vary.
The residents who have been reporting these incidents are not "scared", but rather have a legitimate beef with the behavior of some of the residents of the "sober house".
Since this issue was referred to the Board of Aldermen Committee on Public Safety(with White, Pero and Connolly as members) and with the diligence and attention of current police Chief Holloway, this public safety matter is now well on its way to resolution.
Posted by: Joe Lynch | May 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Hello Somerville, I read the article today and have been experiencing similar drug concerns on my street in East Cambridge for a long time. Not so much with sober houses but with subsidized housing.
Recently, we had 2 fires in 6 months on the same street only a few houses apart. One was proven to be drug related while the other one was ... ahem....suspicious and still being investigated.
Then another fire occurred at a larger building in another part of the city, which was minor, just a few weeks ago. I will supply the links below for further info.
My recommendation is to do whatever you can to get the landlord to install sprinklers and stay on the police to be aggressive with drug enforcement.
This is a dangerous situation and it should not be taken lightly as it was here in the Republic of Cambridge. Unfortunately, these are the laws we live with because not enough good taxpaying citizens make themselves heard.
1.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/archive/x1263110287
2.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/archive/x979191301
3.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1478014842/Police-fire-officials-investigating-Broadway-apartment-building-arson-attempt
Posted by: East Cambridge | May 25, 2008 at 12:34 AM
The best way to make sure this house remains a sober house without drug dealing is to be strict about promptly kicking out anyone who drinks or deals drugs. That should stand as a clear example to those who remain of what will happen to them if they step out of line. Meanwhile, with strict rules, the house will not be a bother to the neighborhood.
Posted by: Lou Hain | May 25, 2008 at 12:14 PM