Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

state statute. Such statute~ have been upheld on the grounds that they bear a substanti:il relationship to a legitimate governmental interest and embody a subject of statewide concern that justifies the 'Preemption of local controls. They generally provide that grohp homes with a maximum residency ranging from six to eight persons are permitted as of right without needing to meet restrictive local zoning standards. Other states have enacted statutes allowing for group homes in residential communitie~ as long as the dwelling remains a specified distance from similar uses. States in Alabama and Washington expressly prol'}ibit unreasonable discrimination in zoning restrictions placed on group homes. Further, most states have licensing requirements for group homes to ensure that certain health, safety, and treatment standards are maintained, which enhances the legititfiacy of group home use. Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 The FHAA, Pub. L. 100-4~30, 102 Stat. 1619, strengthened and expanded the power of thelFair Housing Act to regulate zoning practices that limit equal housing opportunities. Discriminatory zoning practices are constrained by adding the new prohibition against housing discrimination based on handicap, 42 U.S.C. 3604(0, as well as discrimination based on familial status, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c)-(e). Since {he FHAA went into effect, facial and as-applied challenges have been mounted against zoning ordinances that operate to unfairly restrict certain types of uses and occupants from enjoying fair housing. Most of the zoning actions instituted under the act have involved discriminatory treatment of group homes for the handicapped. The FHAA makes it un[awful to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.., because ofhgndicap." Discrimination is defined to include "a refusal to malle reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or'services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford }uch person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Although the amendments fail to spell out exactly what types of land-use and zoning regtilation of group homes arc prohibited, the House Judiciary Committee report makes clear that zoning practices that r~sult in unequal access to housing for handicapped individuals violate the act. The report states, "The Committee intends that th~. prohibition against discrimination against those with handicaps apply to zoning decisions and practices. The Act is intend~ed to prohibit the application of special requirements through land-use regulations.., and conditional or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community." Further, Section 3615 prohibits discriminatory actions ostensibly authorized by a municipal ordinance. That section states that "any law ora State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid." Validity of Occupancy Restrictions Still, without definitive guidance, the courts have been presented with the task of determining which zoning practices violate thc FHAA. [See Baxter v. City of Belleville (city's refusal to issue a special use permit to operate a residence for HIV-infected persons violated FHAA); Stewart B. McKinney Foundation, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield, 790 F. Supp. 1197 (D. Conn. 1992) (special exception requirement for use of residence for home for HIV-infected persons violated handicap provisions ofFHAA); United States v. O~y of Taylor, 798 F. Supp. 442 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (reasonable accommodation denied to adult foster care home for 12 elderly disabled persons).] Some courts have found that ordinance definitions of family discriminate against the handicapped. Injunctions have been issued concerning restrictions on the number of individuals that may occupy a dwelling unit. [See OxfordHouse-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F. Supp. 1329 (D. N.J. 1991); Easter Seals Society of New Jersey, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen, 798 F. Supp. 228 (D. N.J. 1992).] Federal appeals courts, however, have disagreed about whether Congress intended single-family zoning occupancy restrictions to be exempt from protection under the FHAA. This term, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide this issue in City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, 63 U.S.L.W. 4402, 1995 WL 283468. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House Oxford House leased a residence for 10 to 12 recovering adult alcoholics and drug addicts in a neighborhood zoned single- family residential in Edmonds, Washington. The residents are handicapped persons under the FHAA. Under the Edmonds community development code, the only permitted primary uses are single-family dwelling units: "lA] single-family dwelling [unit] means a detached building used by one family, limited to one per lot." "Family means an individual or two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage." The city issued criminal citations to the owner of the Oxford House and one of its residents, charging that Oxford House violated the zoning provision because it housed more than five unrelated persons. Oxford House requested that Edmonds make a reasonable accommodation as required under the FHAA by permitting it to continue operation in the single-family residential zone. The city declined and filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that the zoning provision did not violate the FHAA. The United States filed an action alleging that the city's failure to make a reasonable accommodation violated the FHAA. The two actions were consolidated for consideration by the federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, ruling that the challenged zoning provision was exempted from the FHAA's requirements because