The following cases involve special use permits in the context of land use law and disability:
Special Use Permits
Wisc. Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2006).
Tags
- ADA
- FHA
- RHA
- Mental Health Clinic
- Special Use Permit
- Reasonable Accommodation
Story
Wisconsin Community Health Services (WCS) operates treatment centers for mentally ill patients. It provided patients who could not live alone with psychiatric treatment, counseling, medication monitoring, transportation, and help finding homes and jobs. WCS needed a larger facility and found a property that suited their needs. However, they fell into a zone that required special use permits from the Milwaukee zoning board. Specifically, the property was in a growing, commercial zone.
Though the zoning board granted WCS special use permits for other locations, they declined to do so for this parcel.
Legal Claims
WCS brought claims against the City of Milwaukee under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and Title II of the ADA.
Holding/Reasoning
The court in this case discussed the contours of the RHA, FHA, and ADA, and how the three statutes work together. The question in these is cases is whether and to what extent a municipality must modify its zoning to accommodate disabled persons. The court also held that any ADA, RHA, or FHA plaintiff must meet a statutory “but-for” causation element to show an accommodation is necessary. The zoning rule must harm a person becuase of their disability; a plaintiff has to show that, but-for their disability, they would have received a permit.
Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan., 248 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2001)
Tags
- Special Use Permit
- FHA
- Group Home
- Familial Status
- Reasonable Accommodation
Story
Keys operated several youth group homes in which they house troubled young males. The organization purchased a house in an Olathe neighborhood zoned for single family residential use. To comply with Olathe’s zoning code, Keys applied for a special use permit to run the proposed home.
When neighboring residence discovered the plans for the proposed home, they filed a protest with Olathe. The neighbors argued that the troubled juveniles would increase crime in the area and pose a threat to the many children in the area. Further, they claimed property values would decrease. The Olathe planning commission advised the Olathe city council to deny Keys special use permit application.
Keys supplied the commission with evidence suggesting the neighbors’ fears were unjustified. However, the City denied the special use permit application.
Legal Claims
Keys claimed that four city council members denied the special use permit for its juvenile group home based on the potential occupants’ “familial status” and “handicaps” in violation of the FHA.
Holding/Reasoning
The court ultimately held in favor of the city. First, the group home did not qualify for “familial status” treatment under FHA.
Second, the public safety concerns underlying city’s denial of special use permit were not mere pretext for handicap discrimination. They gave evidence that evidence that youths to be housed at group home were typically antisocial and aggressive, that similar group home occupants had escaped and engaged in a crime spree, and the proposed group home would sit close to numerous residences and within walking distance of several schools and day care centers.
Third, the city did not refuse to make reasonable accommodation, under FHA, in denying special the special use permit.
Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999)
Tags
- Special Use Permit
- FHA
- ADA
- RHA
- Methadone Clinic
- Reasonable Accommodation
Story
In 1998, Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. (“BAART”) and California Detoxification Programs, Inc. (“CDP”) (collectively “Bay Area”) tried to relocate their methadone clinic to the City of Antioch, California. Antioch told the Bay Area they could use a particular property for their clinic. Then, the Antioch City Council enacted an urgency zoning ordinance to prohibit methadone clinics from operating within 500 feet of residential areas. As a result of that ordinance, Bay Area could not operate their clinic. Bay Area requested, and a lower court denied, an injunction blocking the urgency ordinance.
Legal Claims
Bay Area claimed: 1) the district court applied the wrong legal test to its ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; and 2) misjudged the irreparability of the harm it would suffer if the court did not grant the injunction.
Holding/Reasoning (Each Claim)
The court said the following:
1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 794(a) (1999), applied to discriminatory zoning practices because zoning was a normal function of a government entity. (“[A]dopt[ing] much of the persuasive reasoning of the Second Circuit in Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997), and hold[ing] that these statutes do apply to zoning.
The reasonable modifications test set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) did not apply because defendants’ ordinance discriminated on its face rather than in its application, and that the Defendants’ facially discriminatory law per se violated the ADA.
The district court erred by failing to apply the “significant risk” test when deciding whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm by denial of injunctive relief.
- Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12131, which defines the class of individuals entitled to 42 U.S.C.S. § 12132’s protection, includes a test that evaluates the risk posed by an individual. Specifically, an individual who poses a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be ameliorated by means of a reasonable modification is not a qualified individual under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12131.
- Under the significant risk test, the court must decide whether the individual poses a significant risk before it may proceed to ask whether a reasonable modification may eliminate the risk
- The determination of whether a significant risk exists requires an individualized assessment of the nature, duration, and severity of the risk,” and “the probability that the potential injury will actually occur. U.S. Just. Dept. Tech. Man. § II-2.8000.
- Although a city may consider legitimate safety concerns in its zoning decisions, it may not base its decisions on the perceived harm from stereotypes and generalized fears. Therefore, it is not enough that individuals pose a hypothetical or presumed risk. Instead, the evidence must establish that an individual does, in fact, pose a significant risk. Further, it should be emphasized that the risk must be of a serious nature.