Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin ., interest. The court said that to satisfy this burden, the city could not rely upon justifications that were hypothesized. Nor could it rely on over- broad generalizations, said the court. The city had argued that preventing a concentration of undesirable uses, including correctional facilities such as the proposed halfway 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 pre- vent 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 present- ed a danger to the community. Rather, the court found, substantial evi~ dence-including letters from police, community, and religious l~aders, as well as law enforcement experts-showed that a halfway hous~ would provide an important social benefit and would not pose any safety risk to the neighborhood. The court found that the city failed to meet its burden of showing that the zoning ordinance's prohibition of federal halfway houses was substantially related to furthering an important governmen- tal interest: 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 thespecmc grant- ing 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 suc- cessful 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 demonstrating that its proposed use of a halfway house was reasonable. The court concluded that it was therefore entitled to a builder's r~medy. 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). @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 6 30