Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

ews JULY 1995 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Occupancy Restrictions and the Fab Housing Act By Mark S. Dennison On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow decision in CiO' of Edmonds v. Oxford]louse, Inc., revisited the issue of family occupancy restrictions as they affect group homes under the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA). Courts have long held that local governments may further a legitimate public interest in preserving the residential character of single-family zoning districts by using zoning to limit the occupancy of dwelling uni{s to families. Still, specific ordinance definitions of the term j~ra~/y in single-family residential use provisions have often beemsubject to constitutiona, l.attack as discriminating against nonirraditional families and alternative living arrangements, such ~s group homes for mentally disabled persons, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, and battered women. Family Occupancy Restrictions Before analyzing the Edmonds decision, it is important to review the prior case law concerning the scope and validity of ordinance definitions of family. Suburban communities have used a wide range of zoning techniques to effectively exclude nontraditional family groups from residential areas. A common method is the enactment of ordinances limiting the number of unrelated persons who can occupy a dwelling unit. Although an ordinance's definition of what constitutes a family for purposes of single-family zoning may act to exclude group homes and nontraditionai types of family living arrange- ments, the courts in some jurisdictions will uphold such restrictions when they are reasonably related to furthering a goal of maintaining a residential community's character. [See Haywardv. Gaston, 542 A.2d 760 (Del. 1988); MaconAssocia- tion for Retarded Citizens v. Macon-Bibb County Planning & In response to moderate'success by those "'-...~'~nmuo, xu~'~m~:m~m~rmE[~.~,'~Z~a challenging family occupancy restrictions, State Group ~,],,~L~m~,,,,,t,]~l~X~,~4 municipalities generally brdadened their ~. .. ordinance definitions to pe~mi~ occupancy by a ~' Ho~ $~$ ~,~m~n~mmm~X~a certain number of unrelated individuals who live together as a functional family. In addition, some of the conflict was resolved through special permit procedures o} by state legislation. So, although group homes %ntinue to be greeted by local residents with cries of "not in my backyard," some degree!of balancing between societal needs and '.community concerns has taken place through reasonable community accommodation of group home living arrangements. Despite the progress made by state and local governments in accommod4ting group home living arrangements, Congress decided that additional federal legislatio~ was needed to ensure that adequate housing accommodations were being made for the harjdicapped. Thus, with the FHAA, single-family zoning occupancy restrictions became subject to possible federal scrutiny for Fair Housing ACt discrimination. Unfortunately, it was unclear whether or howithe FHAA might apply to these restrictions. Since.its passagcL group home proponents have brought numerous challengqs to family occupancy restrictions, alleging discrimination. Sortie courts ruled that such zoning restrictions were exempted ~om thc FHAA's coverage, while others held that they were s~bject to its scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court3apparently settled the issue by concluding that family composition restrictions in local zoning ordinances are to be evaluate~d for Fair Housing Act ..... discrimination. This issue o~Zoning News reviews the law governing single-family zoning occupancy restrictions, examines how the FHAA affect such r~_strictions, and analyzes the .... Supreme Court's recent decision. ~ .~. Homes Zoning Commission, 314 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 57 (1987); City ofLaDue v. Horn, 720 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. App. 1986); Baer v. Town of Brookhaven, 73 N.Y. 2d 942, 537 N.E.2d 619, 540 N.Y.S.2d 234 (1989).] Still, a majority of courts addressing the issue have held that group homes and nontraditional families may occupy single- family dwellings in residential zones if the group has "the generic character ofa famil7 unit as a relatively permanent household." [See C/ty of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34 N.Y.2d 300, 313 N.E.2d 756, 357 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1974).] . Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. The U.S. Supreme Court has r~hktered decisions on the exclusion of group homes and func- tional families from single-family occupancy in residential zones. These cases consider the meaning of the term family, which many comrn'uni~fes rely on to exclude alternative living arrangements.