504 F.Supp.3d 327
D.N.J.2020Background
- Hansen House, a nonprofit subsidiary, bought a single-family home ("Serenity House") in Atlantic City (R-2 zone) in March 2019 to house women in recovery; residents moved in May 2019 without a certificate of occupancy.
- City issued notices: March 2019 occupancy-violation notice; June 2019 stop-work order for HVAC work without permit; July 2019 a vacate order referencing City Code §152-1 (a 660-foot spacing rule in the chapter titled "Housing for Persons with Disabilities").
- Hansen House applied for a Certificate of Land Use Compliance (CLUC); the City denied the CLUC (procedural deficiencies noted and a reference to §152-1); Hansen House appealed to the Zoning Board, but the appeal was not heard on the merits due to procedural defects.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court asserting FHA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, §1983, Fourteenth Amendment, NJLAD, and NJCRA claims; defendant removed to federal court; both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Key dispute areas: (1) facial challenges to §152-1 (distance rule) and §163-66B (bar on "group family households" in R-2), (2) as-applied reasonable-accommodation claims and related constitutional/state claims, and (3) ripeness/administrative-exhaustion implications of not seeking a zoning variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial disparate-treatment challenge to §152-1 (distance rule) | §152-1 facially discriminates against people with disabilities (housing-for-disabled chapter); violates FHA/ADA/RHA | Moot because City promised not to enforce §152-1 | Court: §152-1 is explicit facial discrimination; City’s post-litigation promise insufficient to moot; plaintiff SJ granted; permanent injunction entered against enforcing §152-1 |
| Disparate-impact challenge to §163-66B (bar on group family households in R-1/R-2) | §163-66B disproportionately excludes persons in recovery who need group living; R-1/R-2 are affluent areas, causing discriminatory impact | Plaintiffs offered no statistical proof of disparate impact | Court: No prima facie disparate-impact proof; plaintiff SJ denied; defendant SJ granted |
| As-applied reasonable-accommodation claims (FHA/ADA/RHA) for permitting group household in R-2 | Plaintiffs sought an accommodation (allow group family household in R-2) and need not seek variance if futile | Plaintiffs failed to pursue a zoning variance; no evidence variance would be futile; claims not ripe | Court: Plaintiffs did not show futility; administrative process not exhausted/ripeness unmet; plaintiff SJ denied; defendant SJ granted |
| §1983, Fourteenth Amendment, NJCRA claims; NJLAD claim | City’s actions were discriminatory and deprived Plaintiffs of rights; state law claim under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.5 | Zoning authorities never issued a final, definitive position; claims not ripe; NJLAD action belongs in Superior Court | Court: §1983, Due Process, NJCRA claims are unripe (federal SJ for defendant granted); NJLAD land-use claim remanded to New Jersey Superior Court for lack of federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-issue and summary judgment standards)
- Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126 (3d Cir.) (requirement that defendant justify discriminatory zoning with no less discriminatory alternative)
- Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir.) (disparate-impact proof and local land-use discrimination analysis)
- Lapid–Laurel LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.) (ripeness/administrative record rule for FHAA reasonable-accommodation claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (disparate-impact causation/statistical proof requirement)
- Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F. Supp. 450 (D.N.J.) (recognition that group homes for persons in recovery implicate disability protections)
- Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass’n, 963 F.3d 301 (3d Cir.) (voluntary cessation/mootness burden on defendant)