Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Z.B. April 10, 1999 Page 3 was zoned single-family. The developer asked the city to rezone the property to R-4, which allowed multiple-family residences. R-4 zoning allowed as many as 8.7 residences per acre. Hemisphere wanted to build nine, so it also sought a special use permit allowing it to exceed the maximum number of residences. The village planning commission approved both applications, but the board of trustees, which had final authority, denied the permits. The trustees offered to rezone the lot to R-3, allowing up to 7.3 units per aci'e. Hemisphere turned down the offer. It believed that with fewer units to spread over the cost of the land, the cost of the units would have to increase by about $10,000. It didn't think it could find buyers among the disabled who could afford the higher price. Hemisphere sued the village under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. It claimed that by rejecting the proposal, the village discriminated against disabled people. It argued the village had no good reason to turn down the request, pointing out that an apartment complex across the street had a density of 25 units per acre. The' Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It also requires such "reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services" as may be "necessary to afford [disabled] per- sons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The court granted the village judgment without, a trial, and Hemisphere appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Hemisphere could not show the village intentionally discriminated against people with disabilities. Unless the village prescribed a uniform density for all residential areas and refused to grant any variances, there would certainly be nearby residential de- velopments that had different densities. To require consideration of a disabled person's financial situation would allow developers of housing for the disabled to ignore not only zoning laws, but also a local building code that would increase the cost of construction. The duty of reasonable accommodation in "rules, policies, practices, or services" was confined to those rules, policies, practices, and services that hurt disabled people by reason of their disabilities, not that hurt them solely by what they share with other people, such as limited funds to spend on housing. Commercial Use -- Town orders owner to stop parking commercial van behind his house Citation: Reardon v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Town of McCandless, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1839 C.D. 1998 (1999) Reardon was a Snap-On Tools franchisee who sold and serviced commer- cial tools and equipment. His business was completely mobile, housed in a van with all the equipment he needed, including a phone, a computer, and a fax 11'7