Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 2 +-- January 15, 1996 z.go Housin!g -- Does Ordinance Authorizing Retirement Communities Discrin{inate Based on Age? Tow~nL of Northbo~vugh v. Collins, 653 N.E.2d 598 (Massachusetts) .[995 Collins was 32 years old when he bought a condominium at the Dingley Dell Retirement Community Park in the town of Northborough, Mass. Collins lived there with Tone, who was about 30. Dingley Dell was built under part of the town's zoning ordinance that authori~d communities limited to people aged 55 or older, provided the com- munitie~ were established on sites of 30 acres or more. Stat~ discrimination law prohibited owners, lessees, or managing agents of multi[~le-dwelling housing accommodations from using age as a reason to withhol~t housing from anyone. However, the law defined "age" so it did not apply tc~ communities built expressly as housing for people 55 or over on at least fiv~ acres. The Federal Fair Housing Act barred discrimination based on familial status, t/.' )wever, the familial status provisions did not apply to "older" people's housing which the Act defined as housing with at least one person per unit who wa,. 55 or older. Aftei' other tenants at Dingley Dell complained to the town building in- spector, .he building inspector ordered Collins to leave the community. Collins refused. The town sued Collins, asking the court to enforce the building inspecto's order. Coll as argued that the town's zoning ordinance was illegal under the state dis :rimination law and the Fair Housing Act. Collins also argued the ordinance was inconsistent with the state discrimination law, because it requiredi at least 30 acres to build communities for the elderly when state law required! at least five acres. The ~ourt granted the town judgment without a trial. Colltns appealed. DECISIQN: Affirmed. The prdinance violated neither state discrimination law nor the Act. The brdinance did not violate state discrimination law. The law exempted commur~ities built expressly for people who were at least 55, on parcels of at least fiv[ acres. The town's requirement of at least 30 acres did not conflict with sta~e law state law stated only that at least five acres were required. The ~rdinance did not violate the Fair Housing Act. It was unclear whether the Act ~ven applied to Dingley Deli, to municipal laws, or to age discrimina- tion. Al~_o, the Act specifically stated that its familial status provisions did not appl~ to housing for people aged 55 or older. Home ~usiness- Residents Object to Neighborhood Funeral Home Hughes v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the V~llage of Waterville, 631 N.Y.S. 2d 1009 (New York) 1995 Pavl~)t, an undertaker, bought a single-family house in a re,s. identiaI district of the vi!lage of Waterville, N.y. Pavlot applied to the village s Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination that he could operate a funeral business there.