The West Allis Common Council heard a proposal to add “recovery residences” to the city zoning code as a conditional use in certain districts, with staff and the city attorney describing both the local approach and limits imposed by state law.

Steve Scherer, director of city planning and zoning, said recovery residences are defined in Section 46 of the Wisconsin Statutes as “a home‑like residential environment that promotes healthy recovery from a substance abuse disorder and supports residents through peer recovery support.” He said recovery residences are not licensed treatment facilities under the Department of Health Services and registration with the DHS is possible but not mandatory. Scherer said the registration is required only if a home wants state referrals or potential state or federal funding; registration signals agreement with minimum operating standards but is not an automatic licensing regime.

Scherer told the council the city’s zoning ordinance is silent on recovery residences and that staff, with the city attorney’s help, prepared an amendment to require recovery residences to obtain conditional‑use approval only in the RC multifamily district and the C2, C3 and C4 commercial districts; other residential districts such as RA and RB would not allow the use. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval and that, based on city records, there have been seven calls for service tied to recovery‑residence locations in the last 18 months, with one arrest among those calls.

Aldermen asked how recovery residences differ from group homes and community living arrangements; Scherer said those uses are governed by different state rules and typically involve different care or staffing levels. Scherer and Attorney Decker said the state statute constrains what the city may impose—for example, the city cannot create a local licensing system for recovery residences—but the city can require property registration and, if a conditional use is approved, impose conditions such as occupancy limits. Decker said the council could impose occupancy numbers as a condition of approval.

Council members also raised enforcement and legacy‑use questions. Scherer said existing unregistered recovery residences could be treated as legal nonconforming uses and that the city could not retroactively force closure simply because a registry is later required. He said property‑owner registration gives the city a contact for reactive enforcement if neighborhood issues arise. Several aldermen pressed for clarity on occupancy caps and owner‑occupied situations; Scherer said state law currently does not impose a hard cap through the statute and the city’s conditional‑use process could address occupancy as a condition.

The public hearing closed after questions. No final council vote on the zoning amendment appears in the meeting transcript provided.