The following cases involve multi-family homes in the context of land use law and disability:
Multi-family
Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008)
Tags
- FHA
- Reasonable accommodation
- Multi-family
- Single-family
- halfway house
Story
Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc. and its principal, Matthew Schwarz, operate six halfway houses for recovering substance abusers in the City of Treasure Island, Florida. Following complaints from neighbors about excessive noise, constant turnover, and the use of the properties for recovering addicts, the City investigated one of the houses and cited Schwarz for violating a City zoning ordinance that limited occupancy turnover. The City’s zoning code distinguishes residential from tourist dwellings and does not allow tourist dwellings in certain areas. The Schwartz homes were located in the areas that prohibit tourist dwellings and limit the number of times a property may be leased per year. The Board fined Schwartz $250 per day for the violation and cited two more of Schwartz and Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc.’s properties for the same violation. Gulf Coast operated a total of six halfway houses, and requested the turnover ordinance not apply to any of those properties
Legal Claims
Schwartz, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., and their residents alleged that enforcement of the occupancy-turnover rule against the halfway houses amounted to disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a failure to reasonably accommodate the disabled under the ADA, FHA, and RHA. The court only heard the reasonable accommodation claim under the FHA.
Holding/Reasoning
- Ultimately, the court could not determine whether Treasure Island had to accommodate four of the six halfway houses because a genuine issue of material fact may exist about whether living in the halfway houses is “necessary” to afford recovering substance abusers an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy” the halfway houses. Since this is an element that a plaintiff must show under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) of the FHA, the court remanded the case to the district court below.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995)
Tags
- Family
- Group Home
- Rehabilitation facility
- Halfway house
- FHA
- Reasonable accommodation
Story
The City of Edmonds’ zoning code contained a provision defining family in areas zoned for single-family use. The code defined “family” as “(1) an individual or two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage; or (2) a group of five or fewer persons not so related.” Oxford House, Inc. opened a group home for 10 to 12 unrelated adults recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction, though the property was located in a single-family zoning district. The city issued criminal citations to the owner and one resident for allegedly violating the zoning restriction. Oxford House asked to be allowed to continue its operations in the same dwelling as a “reasonable accommodation” under the FHA. The City denied their request and passed an ordinance listing groups homes as permitted uses in multi-family and general commercial zones.
Legal Claims
Edmonds sought a declaration that the FHA did not apply to the city’s zoning code. The District Court held that the city’s zoning code rule defining family was exempt from the FHA under as a reasonable restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. The 9th Circuit reversed the District Court and Edmonds appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding/Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, held that the definition of “family” was not a maximum occupancy restriction, and thus not exempt from the FHA. The court held that the provision was a family composition rule and was not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from FHA scrutiny. The definition of family may have capped the number of unrelated persons allowed to occupy a single-family dwelling at five, but it did not cap the total number of people permitted to live in such a dwelling. The court also said the ordinance was intended to foster the “family character of a neighborhood,” so it described family living arrangements, not living space per occupant.