|
<br />
<br />its definition offamilyto parerrtsand cl1i\dren
<br />only. No aunts, uncles, or cousins are allowed.
<br />The measure was, apparently, a reaction to an
<br />influx of exl:ended immigrant families.
<br />Similarly, Milton, Massachusetts, made
<br />even the Seattle papers when it proposed a
<br />more restrictive definition, limiting the num-
<br />berofuncles, nieces, nephews, etc. (the sec-
<br />ond degree of consanguinity) to three and by
<br />creating a schedule of minimum floor areas. A
<br />Georgia municipal court judge invalidated a
<br />limitation on two to four or fewer unrelated
<br />people in multifamily neighborhoods, accord.
<br />ingtoa news service report. Also in the news
<br />were the student-led riots that prompted Fort
<br />Collins, Colorado, to limit occupancy to no
<br />more than three persons. The Fort Collins web-
<br />site even hasa detailed form and process for
<br />disclosing occupancy.
<br />BlackJack,Missouri,atownofabout6,800
<br />peopleinst.LouisCounty,madethepagesof
<br />People magazine, quoting this humble author on
<br />the family definition problem, when BlackJack
<br />applied the Belle Terre definitlon with compulsive
<br />rigidityagainstafamilyconsistingofanunmar.
<br />ried couple and the woman's three children. This
<br />
<br />86
<br />
<br />ET MARRIE
<br />OR MOVE au"
<br />
<br />AMissolJritown ban;OliviaShelitrad,FoodrayLoviilg
<br />andtheirthr~childrenfrorritheirrecentlypurihased
<br />dreamhouse-beCilusethecoupfehaven'twed
<br />
<br />"~'"".,ruW-"""ol\""""",,,,
<br />,......._odL:.noinl<lool.J""".
<br />M."llI~.._'n"'_""""
<br />..,.,.,..".,""""J.no.injI_""in....
<br />~"""''''..,,'''''<i.'.n'''r_~..
<br />"""''''-''',''''''.......'''''"'''''"''''p"..
<br />.........~""""""~....""'"
<br />
<br />"'"ldI................_""'.....
<br />It...,.,'-.....lik..typ;..l.
<br />.""'~th>t"'.....""oIl"""
<br />h.........Sl.lmd<.._....
<br />...1Idnoo",;lbW."......or.oloSlloJI
<br />""ok...FoM:>y~don~"'~
<br />'holocoJdc"",,,...,'_'j.o,
<br />
<br />was more than the three unrelated people
<br />allowed by the ordinance. Despite national ctiti.
<br />cism, cIty officials were steadfast in their resolve
<br />to adheretothe ordinance. On August15,2oo6,
<br />however,thecitycouncilcapilulatedandunani.
<br />mouslyvotedtoamendthedefinitionof"family"
<br />to includeunmamed couples with children.
<br />
<br />RECENT CASES: THE STATE COURTS
<br />A Belle Terre query on a legal search engine
<br />yields a handful of reported decisions over
<br />thepast10years.ln2004,Lawrence,Kansas,
<br />was sued in federal court by a group often-
<br />ants over a definition that no more than three
<br />unrelated persons could l1ve together except
<br />on owner-occupied property. The court tossed
<br />outthefreedomofassociationclaim,citing
<br />Bel/e Terre as "dispositive."
<br />In New Rochelle, NewYork,a nonprofit
<br />providerofhousingservicessoughttoestablish
<br />a group home for 12 homeless youths age 16 to
<br />21,butthe city's denial ofa permit brought
<br />them to federal court in 2004. New Rochelle's
<br />definition limits families to no more than three
<br />people,orfourormorepersons"livingtogether
<br />as a traditional family or the functiona\ equiva-
<br />
<br />lentofatraditiona\family.~Fourormorepeople
<br />living together who are not related by blood,
<br />marriage,legaladoption,orinlegalfosterrela-
<br />tionshiparepresumptivelynotatraditionalor
<br />functional equivalent family, but they have the
<br />tight to prove they are byshowingtheymeet
<br />threectiteria:
<br />. They mustshare the entire living unit
<br />openly,inclVdlngcookingfacilities.
<br />. The group cannot betransientortemporary
<br />(likely to preclude college students from being
<br />afunctionalfamliy).
<br />. The catch.all provision; They must address
<br />other factors related to whether or not they
<br />are a functional family.
<br />Similar to the Lawrence case, this federal
<br />court cited Belle Terre with approval and
<br />found no federal constitutional inftingement
<br />In the state forum, the game gets more
<br />interesting with no seemingly unassailable Belle
<br />Terreto hide behind. In a 2003 decision, a
<br />Oelawarettialcourtheard a challenge bya land-
<br />lord group taking issue with City of Newark ordi.
<br />nancesintendingtolimitthepresenceofcol.
<br />legestlJdentswhosebehaviorwasperceivedto
<br />harm single-family neighborhoods. Ratherthan
<br />zone them out with the usual restrictrve defini-
<br />, tionoffamily,thecitydecidedtoexpressly
<br />define"studenthome~ and then prohibitsuel1
<br />houses in most places. Student homes are
<br />defined as those where coUege students live
<br />together but exclude otheJWise permitted uses
<br />like rooming houses and fratemity Of sororlty
<br />houses. Where student homes were allowed,
<br />the ordinance mandated separation require-
<br />ments-clearly, a deterrent to too many keggers
<br />in close proximity-equal to 10 times the mini-
<br />mum lot width in the district ThblS, if the district
<br />required 1oo-footfrontage, you could not have
<br />another studeflt home within 1,000 feet
<br />interpreting state law, the court found the
<br />landiords had shown that the ordinance dis-
<br />criminated on the basis of mati tal status irlvio-
<br />lationofstatelawbecauseunmamedstudent
<br />couples had more limited housingpossibilities.
<br />The significance oftl1e case is the court's appli-
<br />cation of state law, which may be more protec-
<br />tivetl1anfederallaw.AlthoughtheDelaware
<br />case applies a state statute, Califomia,
<br />Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
<br />and other states have ruled tl1at restrictive defi-
<br />nitionsoffamilyareunconstiMiorlalundertl1eir
<br />constitutions.
<br />Not only can cour'"rSmakethatdecision,
<br />but activIsts can even amend state constitu-
<br />tions as they have in the post.Keloamend-
<br />
<br />ZONlNGPRACTICE 2.07
<br />AMERlco.N?1.J>.IININGAS50CL<.TlONjpage4
<br />
|