Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/08/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 1 Issue 22 Citation: Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, 2014 WL 4922130 (2d Cir. 2014) The Second Circuit has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. SECOND CIRCUIT (NEW YORK) (10/02/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether cases in which a landowner alleges intentional discrimination should be excepted from the final decision -ripeness requirement for a court to have jurisdiction over the land use dispute. The Background/Facts: Sunrise Detox V, LLC ("Sunrise") was a provider of medically supervised care for individuals recovering from alcohol and drug abuse. Sunrise sought to operate a treatment facility in an R2-2.5 zoning district in White Plains, New York (the "City"). In order to satisfy the City zoning requirements for the R2-2.5 zoning district, Sunrise sought to have its residential facility designated as a permissible "community residence" use, and to obtain a special permit for that use. The City's zoning ordinance defined a "community residence" as: "[a] residential facility for the mentally disabled operated pursuant to the New York State Mental Hygiene Law and regulations promulgated thereunder, including an alcoholism facility, a hostel, a halfway house and any other such facility as defined in such regulations, and any simi- lar facilities operated under the supervision of federal departments and agencies." During the hearing process on Sunrise's application, the Commissioner of the City's Department of Building first determined that Sunrise's proposed fa- cility met the special permit requirements as a "community residence." However, before the hearing process was complete and as opposition to the proposed facility mounted, the Commissioner revised his determination. He concluded that Sunrise's proposed facility was more properly classified as a "Crises Services," akin to Hospitals or Sanitaria, which were not permitted uses in the R2-2.5 zone. The Commissioner infolnied Sunrise that it would have to either seek a variance or appeal the Department's determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to proceed with its application. Sunrise did not seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Instead, it filed a lawsuit alleging that the City violated the federal Americans with Dis- abilities Act (the "ADA") by intentionally discriminating against it and its prospective clients, and by failing to offer a "reasonable accommodation" (required by the ADA) by allowing Sunrise's proposed use of the property. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction. It concluded that Sunrise's claims were unripe for adjudication because they presented a "zoning dispute" which first required a final determination before it could be heard by a court. Sunrise appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that Sunrise's claims were not ripe for adjudication; the claims could not be heard by a court until Sunrise had exhausted its administrative avenues and obtained a final de- © 2014 Thomson Reuters 3