Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2019

Home

February 10, 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin purchased a house in the City and sought an oc- cupancy permit from the City. The City denied Cornerstone's permit upon finding that the residence would constitute a "Treatment Center," which was prohibited in residential areas of the City pursuant to a City zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Cornerstone challenged that denial. Among other things, Cornerstone argued that, on its face (i.e., based on the language of the Ordinance itself), the Ordinance discriminated against recovering addicts, which were a protected group under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA")—by limiting where residences that serve recovering addicts may be located. Here, the City Ordinance defined "Treat- ment Center" as including: "A use (other than a prison or a hospital) providing housing for three or more unrelated persons who need specialized hous- ing, treatment and/or counseling because of . . . [c]urrent addiction to a controlled substance that was used in an illegal manner or alcohol...." (City of Clairton Ordinance § 337-12.) Cornerstone argued that the Ordinance facially discriminated against recovering addicts because: (1) the phrase "was used" expands the phrase "current addiction" to include recovering addicts, which are a protected group under the FHAA; and (2) "the context and structure of the Ordinance reflect the legislative intent to adopt that meaning." The FHAA prohibits housing -related discrimina- tion against handicapped persons, and defines "hand- icap" as "a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's ma- jor life activities . . . but . . . does not include cur- rent, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance." (42 U.S.C.A. § 3602(h).) Thus, the FHAA provides that current addicts are not a pro- tected group. Notably, however, federal courts have held that recovering addicts are a protected group. The district court dismissed Cornerstone's claim, holding that the Ordinance's definition of "Treat- ment Center" did not violate the FHAA. Cornerstone appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, held that the Ordinance did not facially discriminate against recovering addicts in violation of the FHAA. In so holding, the court found that the plain mean- ing of the Ordinance's definition of Treatment Centers did not include recovering addicts. The court found that "[t]he plain meaning of [the Ordi- nance's language] [c]urrent addiction to a con- trolled substance that was used in an illegal manner or alcohol' [was] most naturally read to be limited to current addicts" (which were not a protected group under the FHAA). Cornerstone had argued that the Ordinance's phrase "was used" transformed the term "current ad- diction" into "current and past addiction." The court rejected that argument, finding it placed "inordinate weight on the phrase 'was used.' " The court found that "[o]ne can be currently addicted to a drug that was used in the past. That the use occurred in the preceding days or weeks does not alter one's status as a current addict." The court also found that, even if the terms of the Ordinance were "ambiguous," "the overall context of the Ordinance confirmed the City's interpretation." The court found that the Ordinance, read as a whole, "reflected a familiarity with and an intent to conform to the FHAA." Specifically, the court noted that the Ordinance included another cat- egory of "Group Homes" that encompassed recover- ing addicts, and the Ordinance stated an express intent to comply with all provisions of the FHAA. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Ordi- nance's definition of Treatment Center included only the unprotected class of current addicts. Nonconforming Use Applicant proposes to demolish and reconstruct an existing nonconforming multi- family dwelling City denies application, finding demolition would extinguish applicant's right to reconstruct Citation: Renaissance Real Estate Holdings, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2018 WL 6375533 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018) PENNSYLVANIA (12/06/18)—This case ad- dressed the issue of whether an applicant's proposed voluntary demolition and reconstruction of an exist- ing nonconforming multi -family dwelling would extinguish the nonconforming use. The Background/Facts: Renaissance Real Estate Holdings, L.P. ("RREH") owned property (the 6 © 2019 Thomson Reuters