Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

November 10, 1998 -- Page 5 center. The city granted Bannum a license, provided it move its office facilities to a commercial zone and get a separate license. Bannum complied. It then leased rooms at a Fort Lauderdale motel and opened the center. After receiving complaints from city residents, the code enforcement board issued the motel owner a notice stating he violated a city ordinance that re- quired a special use permit for the operation of a "custodial facility." Faced with the threat of fines, the owner told the center to vacate the motel. Under the ordinance, the city could not issue a permit for land to be used for custodial facilities (such as residential habilitation centers, shelter care fa- cilities, and group homes) unless the city commission approved the use based on a recommendation from the planning and zoning board. The board had to consider the impact on neighboring properties, the extent to which the pro- posed facility would serve the community's needs, the compatibility of the proposed facility to the surrounding n. eighborhood, and the proposed facility's conformance to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. While the owner appealed the board's decision, the Bureau of Prisons re- moved the center's residents from the motel. Bannum found an alternative site for the center and applied to the planning and zoning board for a special use permit. The board said it would issue a permit, provided Bannum gave the police department the names and status of the center's participants. The bureau would not let Bannum disclose such information, so the board denied the permit. Bannum revised its application, i In response, the city commission sent Bannum a letter, stating the city had accommodated a disproportionate share of social service facilities and that it would condition approval on Bannum's providing information about the participants. Essentially, the city wanted the right to reject proposed participants based on public safety concerns. Bannum lost its contract with the bureah. It sued the city, but the court granted the city judgment. Bannum appealed, and the court again granted the city judgment. Bannum appealed again, claiming the city ordinance violated its constitutional r/ghts to equal protection and due process. It argued the city applied the ordinance unconstitutionally, because its decision to enforce the "custodial facility" provi- sion was based on negative attitudes and irrational fears about the participants. DECISION: Affirmed. . The city was entitled to Judgment because its actions were rationally re- lated to a legitimate government purpose. The city gave several reasons for requiring Bannum to get a special use permit; it was concerned about public safety and the conservation of municipal resources. Enforcing the ordinance was rationally related to these interests. It was not irrational for the city to be concerned about whether center residents would pose a threat to the surrounding community or exacerbate the city's perceived burden of accommodating a disproportionate share of social service programs. see also: Corot ~,. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F. 2d 1369 (1993).