ADA/FHA Case by Owner of Drug and Alcohol Facility Not Ripe
The authority to zone and regulate land use is one
of a local government’s most significant powers. Although that authority is generally
derived from state statute or state constitution, it may be limited by applicable
federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”). These two laws were the subject of a land use dispute between
Safe Harbor, the owner and operator of an “executive retreat for individuals
recovering from alcohol and drug addiction,” and the Town of East Hampton.
Safe Harbor sought approval to open its drug and
alcohol rehabilitation facility in a residential area in East Hampton. The Town
told Safe Harbor that it would have to apply for a special permit because the
use was not permitted by-right in the zoning district. Safe Harbor appealed to
the Zoning Board, which agreed with the Town’s interpretation. Safe Harbor then sued, claiming that the Town
violated the ADA and FHA by not providing it with a reasonable accommodation to allow it to operate its facility on its
property.
The case made its way to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. Safe Harbor Retreat, LLC v Town of East Hampton, No. 15-797-cv (2d Cir. 10/23/2015). The Town argued
that Safe Harbor’s case should be
dismissed because its claims were not ripe
since it had never applied for and been denied a special permit. The Court of Appeals agreed, and dismissed
Safe Harbor’s case as unripe. The Court also determined that Safe Harbor had
failed to adequately state a claim that East Hampton’s zoning regulations were
discriminatory on their face or as applied to Safe Harbor.
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf
0 comments:
Post a Comment