Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.g. July 25, 1999 -- Page 3 its vote. Though the statute also required the board to timely file a "detailed recording of its proceedings ... setting forth clearly the reason for its decision," the statute didn't require the filing of a single document reflecting both the outcome of the vote and the reasoning behind the board's decision. The board's disapproval of the application, timely f'fled with the clerk, no- tified the developers of the board's action and gave them the right to appeal -- as they did -- and prevented the "constructive approval" of the application. Citation: Board of Aldermen of Newton v. Maniace, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, SJC-07953 (1999). see also: Sheav. Board of Aldermen of Chicopee, 434 N.E. 2d 214 (1982). see also: Building Inspector of Attleboro v. Attleboro Landfill Inc., 423 N.E. 2d 1009 (1981). Discrimination -- Did municipality violate Fair Housing Act by sitting on accommodation request? LOUISIANA (6/18/99) -- Groome Resources Ltd. ran group homes for Alzheimer's patients. It wanted to buy a home in Jefferson Parish to house five adults suffering from Alzheimer's. The parish zoning ordinance stated no more than four unrelated persons could live in a single-family home, and then only on a nonprofit basis. The ordinance allowed the inspections department to grant "a reasonable accom- modation for handicapped persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act." Groome contracted to buy a house, got f'mancing, and applied for a "rea- sonable accommodation" to allow five adult residents. It had previously opened a similar group home in the' parish and had gotten approval in less than 45 days. The parish attorney's office recommended approving the application, as did the director of the inspections department. Groome had to delay closing on the house several times because the parish had not approved its request. Though the inspections department had said the accommodation was reasonable and should be granted, after 127 days the par~. ish had yet to officially act on it. Groome's closing was in less than a week, and it was likely the seller wouldn't give it any more extensions. If Groome didn't get the zoning accommodation, it couldn't buy the house. Groome sued the parish for violating the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimina~'ion based on disability. According to Groome, the inspection department delayed acting on its application at the request of a parish councilman, who it said intervened in the hope that the matter would go away if the proposed purchase fell through. At trial, Groome showed all its homes were well-maintained, showed no signs they were group homes, and were well received by their neighborhoods. The parish claimed the Act yeas unconstitutional, the requested accommo- dation was neither reasonable nor necessary, and Groome's lawsuit was premature because the parish had not denied its application. The parish attor- ney in charge of the review process couldn't say what the current status of the