Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin houses from other similar residential facilities and institutions served an important governmental interest. The court said that to satisfy this burden, the city could not rely upon justifications that were hypoth- esized. Nor could it rely on overbroad generalizations, said the court. The city had argued that preventing a concentration of undesir- able uses, including correctional facilities such as the proposed half- way house, was an important governmental interest. The lower court had found that the city's actual purpose in banning federal halfway houses was not to prevent a concentration of correctional facilities. Rather, it was to prevent a danger to the community from relapses into criminal behavior by federal prisoners housed at the halfway house. The court found that the city failed to provide any evidence that a federal halfway house presented a danger to the community. . Rather, the court found, substantial evidence-including lettersfrom police, community, and religious leaders, as well as law enforcement experts-showed. that a halfway house would provide an important social benefit and would not pose any safety risk to the neighbor- hood. The court found that the city failed to meet its burden of show- ing that the zoning ordinance's prohibition of federal halfway houses was substantially related to furthering an important governmental in- terest. Accordingly, the court concluded that the ordinance violated CRJ's equal protection rights as guaranteed by the State Constitution. The court also concluded that CR] was entitled to a "builder's rem- edy," allowing it to use the. building it owned in the city as a halfway house. The court noted that a "builder's remedy" was the specific granting to a developer of a right to complete a proposed project. The court said that a party was entitled to a builder's remedy if it: (1) was successful in challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance; and (2) met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed use was reasonable. The court found that the lower court had made detailed findings regarding the reasonableness of CRJ's proposed use of a halfway house. Those findings. included that: CRJ's building was close to public transportation, support services and job opportunities; and property values would not be adversely affected. Accordingly, the court found that CR] met its burden of demonstrat~ ing that its proposed use of a halfway house was reasonable. The court concluded that it was therefore entitled to a builder's remedy. See also: Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 917 A.2d 707 (2007). See also: Britton v. Town of Chester, 134 N.H. 434, 595 A.2d 492 (1991). 6 66