Laserfiche WebLink
June 10, 2008 Volume 2 1 No. 11 <br />Constitutionality - Equal Protection—City denies <br />organization's application to operate federal <br />halfway house <br />Organisation argues city's ordinance banning federal <br />halfway houses violates equal protection under the state <br />constitution <br />Citation: Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of <br />Manchester, 2008 WL 1757218 (N.H. 2.008) <br />NEW HAMPSHIRE (04/18/08)—Community Resources for Jus- <br />tice, Inc. (CRJ) was a non-profit organization. It operated "halfway <br />houses" under contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. <br />CRJ sought approval to use a building it owned in the city as a <br />halfway house. <br />The city's zoning board of appeals (the city) denied such approval. <br />Under the city's zoning ordinance, federal correctional facilities were <br />not a permitted use in any of the city's zoning districts. The city de- <br />termined that, under the zoning ordinance, CRJ's proposed use of a <br />halfway house was a federal correction facility, and was therefore <br />not permitted. <br />CRJ brought a lawsuit, challenging the zoning ordinance. It ar- <br />gued, among other things, that the city's ban of federal correctional <br />facilities, as applied to CRJ, violated its federal and state constitu- <br />tional rights to equal protection. <br />The lower court found that the city's ordinance, as applied to <br />CRJ, violated CRJ's equal protection rights under the State Constitu- <br />tion because it did not promote or provide for the general welfare of <br />the community. The lower court granted CRJ a "builder's remedy." <br />This gave CRJ the right to operate its building in the city as a half- <br />way house. <br />The city appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The court concluded that the city's zoning ordinance banning the <br />use of CRJ's building as a federal halfway house violated equal pro- <br />tection, as applied to CRJ. The court noted that an equal protection <br />challenge to a zoningordinance was subject to intermediate scrutiny. <br />This meant that the .burden was on the city to demonstrate that the <br />zoning ordinance was substantially related to an important govern- <br />mental objective. The city had to prove that distinguishing halfway <br />5 <br />65 <br />