In a recent government meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding the operation of a sober living facility at 296 Orange Street, which has been accused of operating illegally and without proper zoning. Residents voiced their frustrations, citing a history of disturbances and safety risks associated with the facility, which they claim has seen a high turnover of occupants and has negatively impacted the neighborhood's quality of life.

One resident highlighted that the facility had not filed for a variance until it was caught operating outside legal parameters, raising questions about the management's compliance with local regulations. Another resident, Frank Depo, a former state prosecutor, expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of sober homes, citing a pattern of re-offending among individuals in recovery. He emphasized the potential dangers of allowing such facilities to operate without stringent oversight, referencing a past incident involving a fire at an unregistered sober living facility in Worcester.

The discussion also touched on the legal complexities surrounding the facility's status. The attorney representing the sober home argued that it had obtained a variance from the state fire marshal regarding fire safety regulations, asserting that the facility was in compliance with New Hampshire laws. However, residents countered that the facility's operations posed ongoing risks, including disturbances and safety concerns, particularly given its proximity to schools and residential areas.

The meeting revealed a broader tension between the need for sober housing and community safety, with residents advocating for stricter regulations and oversight. The attorney for the sober home argued against the notion that individuals in recovery should be excluded from neighborhoods, citing the Fair Housing Act's intent to prevent discrimination against those with addiction issues.

As the meeting concluded, the board faced the challenging task of balancing the needs of individuals in recovery with the concerns of local residents, highlighting the ongoing debate over sober living facilities in the community. The outcome of this discussion could set a precedent for how similar facilities are managed and regulated in the future.