Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

it was a "restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling," relying on the Eleven Ci~'cuit's decision in £1tiott v. Athens, 960 F.2d 975 (1 lth Cir.), cert. de, led, 113 S.Ct. 376 (U.S. 1992). Oxford House and the United States appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the exemption did not apply to the ordinance's occupancy restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court's Ruling The FH_AA entirely exempts from its purview any reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted in a dwelling. In Edmonds, the Court was asked to decide whether the occupancy restrictions in the city's zoning code qualified for this exemption. The city argued that this was a restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants even though the zoning provision did not regulate the maximum number of related occupants. Oxford House argued that the FHAA exempt only those restrictions that limit the number of all occupants, whether related or not. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that Oxford House was correct. The majority, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the exemption did not apply and remanded the case for further proceedings t'o determine whether the city had violated the FHAA by failing to make reasonable housing accommodations for the handicapped. The court reasoned that the ordinance provision under attack was not a maximum occupancy restriction but a family composition (or use) limitation not expressly entitled to the FHAA exemption. The Court explained its distinction between maximum occupancy and land-use restrictions: To limit land use to single-family residences, a municipality must define the term family; thus family composition ru]es are an essential component of single-family residential use restrictions. Maximum occupancy restrictions, in contradistinction, cap the number of occupants per dwelling, typically in relation to available floor space or the number and type of rooms. These restrictions ordinarily apply uniformly to all residents of all dwelling units. Their purpose is to protect health and safety by preventing dwelling overcrowding. Relying on this distinction, the (]ourt concluded that the law's plain language clearly encompassed maximum occupancy restrictions, but not family composition rules that are typically tied to land-use restrictions. The Court stated: In sum, rules that cap the total number of occupants in order to prevent overcrowding ora dwelling "plainly and unmistakably" fall within Section 3607(b)(1)'s absolute exemption from the FHA's governance; rules designed to preserve the family character ora neighborhood, fastening on the composition of Zoning News is a monthly newsletier published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign). Michael B. Barker, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Exccutlve Director; William R. ~eln, Director of Research. Zoning Newt is produced at APA, Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Dan hirer, Fay Dolnick, Scott Dvorak, Michel[e Gregory, San jay Jeer, Beth McGuire, Marya Morris, Chris Smlrh, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistan¢ Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright 01995 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices ar 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 200315. All rights reserved. No part o£thls publication may be reproduced or utilized in any [orm or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording. or by any informarion storage and retrieval syslem, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postcon~umer wazte. ~ households rather than on the total number of occupants living quarters can contain, do not. Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, ridiculed the majority for focusing its analysis on two terms--maximum occupancy restrictions and family composition rules. He labeled these invented categories of zoning restrictions and considered them simply irrelevant. In his view, the plain meaning of the FHAA's exemption for maximum occupancy restrictions covered the challenged ordinance provision. In one particularly contemptuous passage, Justice Thomas stated: To my mind, the rule that "no house.., shall have more than five occupants" (a "five-occupant limit") readily qualifies as a "restrictio[n] regarding the maximum number o£occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." In plain fashion, it restrict[si--to fire--"the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." To be sure, as the majority observes, the restriction imposed by petitioner's zoning code is not an absolute one because it does not apply to related persons. But Section 3607(b)(I) does not set forth a narrow exemption only for "absolute" or "unquali- fied" restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants. Instead, it sweeps broadly to exempt any restrictions regarding such maximum number. It is difficult to imagine what broader terms Congress could have used to signify the categories or kinds of relevant governmental restrictions that are exempt from the FHA. Conclusions Initially, this decision may prompt more litigation by group home proponents seeking to mount attacks on family occupancy restrictions. It is important to note, however, that the Supreme Court's holding in the Edmonds case is a narrow one. The Supreme Court has not stated that family occupancy restrictions are invalid per se. Such restrictions are just not entitled to the maximum occupancy exemption provided in the FHAA. This means that such provisions are subject to evaluation for housing discrimination against the handicapped. In other words, as the court directed, single-family zoning ordinances are subject to federal scrutiny under the FHAA for a determination of whether reasonable accommodations have been made to afford handicapped individuals equal access to housing. This determination is a fact-based inquiry. Ifa municipality can show that it has made reasonable accommodations to provide housing opportunities for the handicapped, the ordinance may still withstand a FHAA challenge. The Edmonds case has now been remanded for this fact-based inquiry by the lower federal court. Since the Supreme Court provided no test or clear guidance on how to determine whether the city has provided reasonable housing accommodations for the handicapped, it will be interesting to see how the federal court tackles this issue. It is worth noting that the city of Edmonds amended its zoning code to allow group homes as a permitted use in multifamily and general commercial zones. If, on remand, the federal court decides that this action constitutes the necessary reasonable housing accommodation, the Court's ruling in Edmonds may turn out to have little long-lasting effect. If, on the other hand, the federal court determines that reasonable accommodations for the handicapped require access to housing in single-family residential zones, municipalities may be compelled to make group homes a permitted use in residential neighborhoods. How the federal courts come down on the reasonable accommodation issue will ultimately decide the fate of single-family zoning occupancy restrictions under the FHAA.