Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Z.B. July 15, 1995. Page 5 than a certain number of people. New Jersey's Municipal Land Use Law gave municipalities the power to enact zoning ordinances that required conditional use permits for community residences if"reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the district." After the city passed its zoning amendments, Creative Property Manage- ment of New Jersey Inc. bought a condominium unit in a complex that already housed about 10 developmentally disabled people (all of whom lived in units that Creative Property owned). The Association of Mentally Handicapped Per- sons Inc. managed and had an ownership interest in Creative Property. The association offered the unit to two developmentally disabled individuals, and Creative Property applied for a certificate of occupancy. The city denied the re- quest because the unit was within 1,500 feet of an existing community residence. The association and Creative Property sued the city alleging housing dis- crimination. They asked the court for judgment without a trial on two issues: a declaration that the ordinance's restrictions on the location of community resi- dences violated the FHAA, and an order preventing the city from enforcing those provisions. They also asked the court to declare invalid the state law that authorized those parts of the ordinance. DECISION: Motion granted. The ordinance's restrictions, and the state law that authorized them, vio- lated the FHAA. Therefore, the city was ordered not to enforce the ordinance. The city's ordinance was discriminatory because it restricted housing choices based on disabilities -- its restrictions applied to residences that housed more than six disabled people, bu, t not to homes that housed more than six nondisabled people. Although state and local governments had the authority to regulate land use and to protect health and safety, they could not keep people with dis- abilities from living in communities. The FHAA was intended to apply to zon- ing decisions and practices that limited disabled people's housing choices. Because the ordinance was discriminatory, the city had to show it advanced a legitimate interest and there was no less discriminatory way to do it. The city failed to do this. It provided no evidence to support its allegations that devel- opmentally disabled people posed a threat to the community (in fact, there was evidence the Department of Human Services screened out potentially danger- ous residents) or that the residents would detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. The city also failed to show that its automatic denial of conditional use permits would do anything to protect the community from any alleged danger. The state statute was invalid because it allowed cities and towns to adopt zoning ordinances that would violate the FHAA. Appeal J Was County's Portion of State Permit Application a Land Use Decision? : Knee Deep Cattle Co. v. Lane County, 890 P..2d 449 (Oregou) 1995 Lane County, Ore., made a land t/se decision that permitted a recreational