Chapter 6 Group Homes

• Library: The Zoning and Land Use Handbook (ABA) (2016 Ed.)

Chapter 6 Group Homes

The question has arisen on more than one occasion concerning the exclusion of so-called group homes in certain zoning districts, such as a home for the intellectually disabled. In City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court held that requiring a special use permit for a group home for the intellectually disabled violated equal protection rights in the absence of any rational basis for believing that the group home would threaten legitimate interests "in a way that other permitted uses such as boarding houses and hospitals would not." The Court applied this test to the facts and found that the record did not reveal any rational basis for believing that the group home in question could be excluded. One consideration in single-family neighborhoods is the special protection that "traditional family values" have been afforded by the U.S. Supreme Court.² A group home for the intellectually disabled might not satisfy the permitted definition of "family" any more than six unmarried university students do, the issue that was litigated before the Court in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas.³

Also relevant to this topic are the 1988 amendments to the Federal Fair Housing Act,⁴ which provide private persons, including the handicapped, the right to challenge discriminatory housing practices, a right that covers zoning against group homes. The purpose of the amendments is to make "a clear pronouncement of a national commitment to end the unnecessary exclusion of persons with handicaps from the American mainstream."⁵

The subject of group homes has, since the passage of the amendments to the Fair Housing Act, been of major importance to many communities throughout the nation. In the case of City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.,⁶ the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a portion of the Act which exempted from the FHA's compass "any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling."⁷

The Edmonds case presented the question of whether a provision of the City of Edmonds Zoning Code qualified for the complete exemption from the Fair Housing Act, an Act that aims to prohibit discrimination against the handicapped. The provision defined the term "family" as "persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer unrelated persons." This provision is typical of many found throughout the State of Illinois and, indeed, is within the authorization given by the Illinois Municipal Code, which permits the corporate authorities "to classify, to regulate and restrict the use of property on the basis of family relationship, which family relationship may be defined as one or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage or adoption and maintaining a common household."⁸

The definition of "handicapped" within the meaning of the federal law includes recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. In the Edmonds case, Oxford House opened a group home in the City of Edmonds, Washington, for ten to twelve adults recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction. The group home, called Oxford House-Edmonds, was located in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residences. Upon learning that Oxford House had leased and was operating a home in Edmonds, the City issued criminal citations to the owner and a resident of the house. The citations charged violations of the Zoning Code, which defines who may live in a single-family dwelling unit.

Ultimately, Edmonds sued Oxford House in the U.S. District Court seeking a declaration that the Fair Housing Act does not constrain the City's Zoning Code definition of "family." Oxford House counterclaimed, charging the City with a violation of the Fair Housing Act for failing to make a "reasonable accommodation" by permitting the group home in a single-family zone. The FHA definition of "discrimination" includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."⁹

The U.S. Supreme Court framed the question as being whether "Edmonds' family composition rule qualifies as a 'restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling' within the meaning of the FHA's absolute exemption."¹⁰ The Court concluded that the "family composition rule" did not qualify...