Single-family

The following cases involve single-family homes in the context of land use law and disability:

Caron Foundation of Florida, Inc. v. City of Delray Beach, 879 F.Supp.2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

Tags

  • FHA
  • ADA
  • Single-family
  • Rehabilitation center
  • Use ordinance

Story

Caron ran alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation centers in Palm Beach County, Florida. To expand their operations, Caron bought two single-family homes in the City of Del Ray Beach, FL. However, the community opposed the rehab centers and began to protest their operation. Zoning board members and the Mayor of Del Ray made discriminatory comments about the rehab centers, saying the centers were “a cancer” in the town. In response to the community’s opposition, the City amended its “transient use ordinance,” which limited the number of times a single-family home could be leased in a year. The new ordinance limited turnover to three times a year in single-family zoning districts and clarified that the turnover rate applied to the entire dwelling or any part thereof. Caron applied for an accommodation that would allow them to keep running its rehab centers. The City requested additional information from Caron, but Caron refused to provide certain information. Additionally, Caron did not provide any information as to whether allowing seven residents in one single family home was necessary for the homes to provide therapeutic relief to Caron’s patrons.

Legal Claims

Caron filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the City of Delray Beach and claimed the City violated the FHA and the ADA. Caron claimed the City interfered with Caron’s rehabilitation center for individuals recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse. Caron also claims the City denied Caron a reasonable accommodation for a home it purchased in a single-family neighborhood and the City’s transient zoning ordinance.

Holding/Reasoning (Each Claim)

  • First, the court found Caron’s reasonable accommodation claim was not ripe. Since Caron did not submit all the documents required to make a decision about the requested accommodation, the City had not been able to make a decision about Caron’s application.
  • Second, the court found the transient ordinance was not facially discriminatory. Using the phrase “Transient” ordinance was not a substitute for a discriminatory term.
  • Next, the court used the factors announced by the Supreme Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) to determine whether the City of Delray Beach acted with unlawful discriminatory intent.
  • Caron showed a substantial likelihood of success in demonstrating that the City unlawfully discriminated when it passed an amended transient use ordinance. The court cited the “highly suspicious timing of the change,” the “discriminatory comments,” and the City’s “history of trying to legislatively exclude sober living facilities” as evidence the City acted at least in part for discriminatory reasons.
  • The amendment also irreparably harmed Caron. Finally, the court held that it was not against the public interest to enjoin discrimination against individuals with disabilities or those who provide housing and treatment services on their behalf. The court granted the preliminary injunction against the City of Delray Beach from violating the ADA or FHA as it processed Caron’s reasonable accommodation request. Caron would need to reapply or provide the City with more information to move its reasonable accommodation request forward. As such, the City was enjoined from enforcing the transient use ordinance against Caron.
Utah Labor Com’n v. Paradise Town, 660 F.Supp.2d 1256 (D. Utah 2009)

Tags

  • FHA
  • ADA
  • Reasonable accommodation
  • single-family

Story

The Leishmans, Utah homeowners, requested a variance from a zoning ordinance that only allowed one single-family dwelling per residential lot. The homeowners wanted to build a second building next to their home in order to house their daughter’s caregivers. The Town of Paradise said they would allow a caregiver to move into the Leishmans’ basement, but would not allow them to build the extra structure.

Legal Claims

The Utah Labor Commission brought an action against Paradise and its Mayor for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to homeowners under the FHA and ADA. Paradise filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued the Leishman’s request would fundamentally alter their zoning code.

Holding/Reasoning (Each Claim)

  • The court recognized that the Laishmans only requested a variance or conditional use permit to build the second dwelling on their lot, rather than a change to the zoning code. As such, the accommodation would not fundamentally alter the nature of the zoning code.
  • Furthermore, the exceptions provided in the FHA for dwellings occupied by no more than four families, if owner occupied did not apply to the Town of Paradise. The exceptions provided in 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(2) only apply to the sale and rental transactions of single-family homeowners, not to municipal actions affecting single-family homes.

 

Scroll to top