The following content section contains 3 specific case highlights.

KRAFT DEVELOPMENT III, LLC v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA

In this case, a senior housing developer sued the City of Delray Beach under the Fair Housing Act for failing to permit a senior housing development. After the parties engaged in full discovery, the case settled. The City of Delray Beach agreed to pay $150,000.00 in damages. Case-specific links:

SETTLEMENT AND ORDER
·

ST. JOHN’S COMMONS, INC. v. HAVRE DE GRACE, MARYLAND

In this case, a housing developer sought to build and operate an affordable housing program within a residential district of the City of Havre de Grace. The provider, a recipient of HUD financing, sought to house and serve elderly persons with physical and cognitive disabilities. After the local zoning board denied a variance, the developer sued the City for violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States District Court of Maryland. The parties entered into a consent order under which the City agreed to grant a reasonable accommodation and permit the provider to use and build the program. Case-specific links:

COMPLAINT --|--CONSENT ORDER
·

LIFE QUEST v. VILLAGE OF PALMER, NEBRASKA

This fair housing case was brought in the United States District Court for Nebraska on behalf of a provider against the Village of Palmer in the State of Nebraska for denying a conditional use permit to build a group home to house up to fourteen people with mental illness. The provider also alleged violations of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act because the Village denied its clients access to certain public areas including the public swimming pool and recreational center. The Court issued a consent order in which the Village of Palmer agreed to comply with federal law, grant the use permit to the provider to open up the group home, and to pay $30,000.00 in damages.

AMENDED COMPLAINT --|--CONSENT ORDER
·

COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC. AND ARETHA MEEKINS v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE

In this case, Community Support Programs, Inc., a not-for-profit service provider and Aretha Meekins, a client in CSP’s program won an appeal before the Board of Adjustment for the City of Dover. After hearing oral argument, the Board of Adjustment agreed to treat the Connections staff apartment at Country Village Apartments as a permitted use under the city’s zoning code. The applicants argued, and the Board agreed, that the staff apartment is an integral and necessary component of the housing program and should be treated as a permitted use under the reasonable accommodation provision of the Fair Housing Act. Case-specific links:

LEGAL MEMORANDUM
·

TRACEY P. v. SARASOTA COUNTY

In this case, three individuals along with a housing provider, Renaissance Manor Inc., and a community mental health center, Coastal Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., brought a federal civil rights suit against Sarasota County challenging a zoning decision to shut down a recovery program which consisted of six single family homes. Subsequently, the United States Department of Justice brought suit and the cases were consolidated. After Judge Whittemore denied the County’s summary judgment motion, the parties entered into negotiations and submitted an order to the Court wherein the County agreed to pay the private plaintiffs $750,000.00 and to permit the homes to continue to operate as six independent sober homes for people in recovery. The County also agreed to fair housing training and reporting requirements. Case-specific links:

COMPLAINT --|--COURT ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --|-- CONSENT ORDER
·

SUNNYSIDE MANOR, INC. v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL.

Sunnyside Manor, Inc. operates a nursing home and assisted living home on a six-acre lot in a residential district of Wall Township, New Jersey.  In 2001, the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied Sunnyside’s application to expand its current facility. After the application was denied, Sunnyside filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for New Jersey claiming that Wall Township violated the Fair Housing Act. After lengthy litigation, the parties reached a settlement that required Sunnyside Manor to have the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the settlement in a public forum.  When the Zoning Board denied the application for the second time, Sunnyside renewed its lawsuit claiming that the second denial violated the Fair Housing Act.  After renewed litigation, the parties entered into a resolution embodied in a Consent Order signed by the Honorable Judge Chesler on November 17, 2006.  Under the settlement, the Township agreed to pay Sunnyside $750,000.00 and enact two ordinances to create Mt. Laurel zoning at a new residential site where the facility will relocate. Case-specific links:

AMENDED COMPLAINT --|--CONSENT ORDER --|--NEWS ITEM
·

KARMA ACADEMY GROUP HOME v. HOLBROOK ASSOCIATION .

In this case, KHI, a group home provider, sought verification from the Director of Planning for Baltimore County whether a group home for eight adolescent boys with mental illness was permitted as a matter of right or exempt from special hearing requirements by operation of federal law.  After the Director advised that the group home was exempt from special hearing requirements under the Fair Housing Act, the Holbrook Community Association challenged the decision by filing an appeal with the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County.  The Zoning Board dismissed the appeal, in favor of the provider, KHI.  The home opened in January 2004, and is thriving as a good neighbor serving young boys in need of treatment and services. Case-specific links:

REPLY BRIEF
·

WELLS v. SUSSEX COUNTY.

In this case, Jeffrey and Patsy Wells, wished to lease a home in Sussex County, Delaware to a group home provider providing housing and supports to individuals with mental illness.  The Wells family was told that they had to apply for a permit in order to lease the home to the provider. After doing so, the permit was denied due to community opposition.  The Wells sued the County in the federal court in Delaware. Shortly after the case was filed, the Delaware Legislature amended a state law statute that exempted group home providers serving individuals with mental illness from local zoning laws.  The case settled in April 2004 with the County recognizing the right of the provider to operate, and paid $80,000.00 in damages.  After the home opened in June 2004, the Governor of Delaware greeted supporters, friends, and family members at an open house to which neighbors were invited. Case-specific links:

PICTURE --|-- COMPLAINT --|-- SETTLEMENT --|-- NEWS ITEM-
·

HOVSONS v. TOWNSHIP OF BRICK.

In this landmark case a nursing home provider challenged a township’s refusal to allow for the construction of a nursing home in a residential zoning district. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the nursing home provider, reversing the trial court decision and entering broad injunctive relief. The Third Circuit held that the township violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to grant a variance to permit construction of a nursing home for elderly individuals with disabilities in a primarily residential area.  The court found that the township had not met its burden of showing that granting the variance would have imposed an undue burden or fundamentally altered its zoning scheme.  The court is often quoted for the proposition that the FHA's "promise that 'reaonsable accommodation' be provided to handicapped persons would be an empty one indeed if Brick Township were permitted to do nothing to accommodate the elderly disabled who are in need of nursing home care and desire to live in one of the Township's residential zones."  After the ruling, the developer moved swiftly through the site-development process. Case-specific link:

DECISION-
·

POTOMAC GROUP HOME v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

Two elderly female residents and their families sued to stop Montgomery County from enforcing a county regulation that would have forced them to live in a nursing home. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on liability, the County changed its regulations to grant exemptions for individuals who could not self-transfer from their beds to their wheelchairs. The County also altered its practices of requiring notification to neighbors and special hearings for new group homes during the licensing process. Case-specific links:

DECISION --|-- NEWS ITEM-
·

SKIPPER v. HAMBLETON MEADOWS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.

A provider sued a neighborhood association in federal district court for filing a frivolous state court action to enforce restrictive covenants. After the federal case was filed,  the provider successfully moved to stay the state court proceeding.  The parties reached a settlement with the community agreeing to withdraw its state court action and pay the provider attorneys' fees and costs. Case-specific link:

DECISION
·

HORIZON HOUSE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. TOWNSHIP OF UPPER SOUTHHAMPTON.

This was one of the first fair housing cases to go to trial under the 1988 amendments and to challenge a spacing requirement.  The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff after a bench trial awarding injunctive relief, and  the Third Circuit affirmed.   Many cases have followed the reasoning of this case, and several municipalities around the country have since repealed their spacing requirements or choose not to enforce them. Case-specific link:

DECISION-