Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 2 -- April 1995 Z.B. Handicapped Discrimination -- Village Says Group Home Needs Special Use Approval United States v. Village of Palatine, 37 E3d J230 (Illinois) J994 Oxford House Inc. was a nonprofit corporation that helped find housing for recovering substance abusers. It issued charters, to participating "Oxford Houses," which governed themselves and were financially self-supporting. The houses did not provide professional treatment, and immediately expelled any- one who used drugs or alcohol. ~' In 1992, Oxford House-Mallard (Mallard House) rented a six-bedroom house, housing 11 residents, in the village of Palatine, Ill. The area was zoned for single-family use and licensed group homes with no more than eight resi- dents, plus staff. The zoning ordinance defined single families as biological families or up to three unrelated people living together. To be considered a group home under the ordinance, a facility had to have paid professional sup- port staff. Mallard House did not meet either of these definitions, so it needed a special use permit. Mallard House knew about the zoning regulations, but did not apply for special use approval because Oxford House Inc. had a policy of refusing to seek zoning approval before moving into residential areas. It considered its homes no different from a biological family. After the residents moved in,. the village cited Mallard House for violating rental property licensing requirements and the village's Life Safety Code. In finding Life Safety Code violations, the inspector said Mallard House was a rooming house, not a single-family home. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibited housing discrimination on the basis of handicap, and required municipalities to make reasonable housing accom- modations for individuals with handicaps. Under the Act, all Mallard House residents were considered handicapped. When Mallard House asked the vil- lage to accommodate it, .the village told it to apply for special use approval. Mallard House refused to apply because.the special use process required a public hearing. It feared its residents would be traumatized by the. public's reaction to having recovering addicts nearby. Mallard House filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, claiming the village discriminated against it by not mak- ing a reasonable accommodation. The village sued Mallard House in state Court for violating its zoning ordinances. It asked the court to force Mallard House to reduce the number of residents to three, so it would comply with the zoning ordinance's definition of a family. On behalf of Mallard House, the federal government sued the village in federal court. It asked the court for an order stopping the village from proceed- ing with its stat'e court, action until a trial. The judge issued the Order. The village appealed, arguing it did not have to make any accommodations because Mallard House never applied for special use'approval. Mallard House argued that a reasonable accommodation would waive the special use ))