Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 2 -- March 25, 1999 Z.B. Discrimination Does ordinance's definition of 'family' violate federal fair housing law? Citation: ReMed Recovery Care Centers v. Township of Willistown, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 98-2921 (1999) ReMed Recover Care Centers provided rehabilitation services for persons with brain injuries and other disabilities. It hor~sed residents in supervised group homes in a residential environment that functioned similarly to a family, as- sisted by counselors. Residents prepared and ate meals together and performed chores such as cleaning and shopping. ReMed decided to reorganize some of its homes in Pennsylvania. It spent $460,000 for a six-bedroom house in the township of Willistown and spent more money making the house 'suitable for a group home. ReMed proposed housing eight residents at the house because this would ~illow it to accommo- date residents who wanted to live together. The house was one of three houses on a road zoned single-family. The township's zoning ordinance defined "family" as "no more than five unrelated individuals living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit." The pro- posed'group home would be a permitted use if it was limited to five residents. ReMed applied for. a building permit to begin renovations. The'tox.vnship granted ReMed's request after ReMed agreed no more than five people would reside there unless ReMed first got a variance or a court's approval. ReMed applied for a variance allowing itto house three more residents. It sought a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Amend- ments Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on a disability. The Act def'med discrimination to include "a refusal to make reasonable accommo- dations in rules, policies, practices, or' services; when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." ReMed claimed that given the cost of purchasing and renovating the house, as well as the cost of operating the home, it needed eight residents to make the home economically viable. It said if it couldn't have eight.residents then none of the residents could live in the house because it had already lost $74,000 operating the house, with only five residents. The board denied ReMed's request. It concluded denying ReMed permis- sion to have three ~xtra residents wouldn't deny those individuals an opportu- nity to live in a group home because ReMed operated other group homes in the township. The board also found ReMed hadn't presented any evidence the accommodation was necessary to make the property financially viabI'e or that the expansion would be "therapeutically meaningful.'' The board also found, though, that use of the property by eight residents wouldn't have a substantial impact on the zoning regulations. ReMed sued the township, claiming it violated the Act by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation to its zoning ordinance. ReMed asked the court