Norwich - After two months of delays, a public hearing will continue Tuesday on a controversial substance-abuse recovery house at 337 Mohegan Park Road.

Facing enforcement action by the city, owner Vince Guilfoil had applied for a special permit for the Veterans Supportive Living facility, which has been operating without permits for two years.

Several neighbors objected to the permit application during a public hearing before the Commission on the City Plan in May, saying they had no warning that the facility was coming and calling it a nuisance with noise and traffic.

Guilfoil told the commission that he was catering to veterans in need of recovery sources, but neighbors questioned his claim, noting that an application for potential residents did not even ask if a person was a veteran.

The commission delayed action in May to receive information on whether Guilfoil qualified as a nonprofit entity under city regulations. Guilfoil then asked the commission to delay hearings scheduled for June and July - upsetting residents who came to the meetings expecting to have the chance to comment.

City Planner Michael Schaefer said the commission must hold the hearing Tuesday, because it has reached the end of the mandatory 65-day period to close a hearing.

City attorney Sean Sullivan sent a six-page letter to the planning commission addressing issues related to whether Guilfoil's organization, Serenity Recovery Living Centers Inc., is a nonprofit organization - a requirement of the permit.

Sullivan said the commission should ask for further information on Guilfoil's statements at the earlier hearing that he had applied for federal nonprofit status. Another question is whether the facility was self-supporting through fees or subsidized by donations from outside sources.

But whether nonprofit or not, Sullivan said the commission must review evidence on whether the facility is compatible with the neighborhood.

"If the commission concludes the application is not harmonious to the surrounding neighborhood and/or would negatively impact the surrounding area or quality of life," Sullivan wrote, "the application should be disapproved regardless of what evidence is or may be submitted on the issue of charitable use."

c.bessette@theday.com