Agenda - Council - 11/07/2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Ramsey Planning Commission Page 2 October 20, 2011 Thus the U.S. Supreme Court finds no objection in this 1974 case with family only restrictions However, Belle Terre was interpreting the U.S. Constitution and not the Minnesota State Constitution or any other state constitution. Since Belle Terre was decided in 1974, several state court decisions have held ordinances which totally exclude unrelated persons from single family districts as unconstitutional under their specific State Constitution. To date, this issue has not been decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court in two cases dealing with group homes has ruled that even with local zoning ordinances which require persons to be related in order to be a family, a group home is a single family dwelling. See Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., Minn. 313 N.W.2d 21 (1981) and Good Neighbor Care Center v. Little Canada, 357 N.W.2d 159 (Min. App. 1984). In Costley the Minnesota Supreme Court went on to say that ... the word "family" is no longer limited to a traditional concept of marriage and biological ties.. so long as the group home bears a generic character of a family unit as a relatively permanent household, and is not a framework for transients living, it conforms to the purpose of the ordinance." In addition in another U.S. Supreme Court case, the court ruled in 1995 that zoning ordinances placing a limit on the number of unrelated persons who may live together in a single family zone may be challenged under the U.S. Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988. Thus notwithstanding the Belle Terre decision cited above, the trend in Appellate Court decisions clearly seems to be to define "family" or "relatives" in very broad terms and to NOT totally exclude groups of unrelated persons from occupying properties in single family zones. The courts, however, do seem to permit a restriction on the number of unrelated persons who can live together in a family zone. This limitation appears to be in response to legitimate zoning ordinance objectives of preserving "the sanctity of the family, quiet neighborhoods, low population, few motor vehicles and low transiency." State v. Champoux, 252 Neb. 769 (1997). By way of example, the City of Richfield ordinance on definition of "family" appears to be in accord with the current state of the law on this subject. The Richfield ordinance defines family as (1) an individual plus (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, etc.; (2) two unrelated people and any children related to either of them; or (3) one or more persons occupying a premises, subject to a limit of not more than three (3) unrelated persons eighteen (18) years of age or older (emphasis added). Richfield goes on to state in its ordinance: The definition of family is established for the purpose of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods by controlling population density, noise, disturbance and traffic congestion and shall not be applied so as to prevent the city from making reasonable accommodation where the city determines it necessary under applicable federal fair housing laws.