McKIVITZ v. Township of Stowe
2010 WL 6004441, 769 F.Supp.2d 803, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135262 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff must show that a requested zoning accommodation is necessary to provide handicapped persons an equal opportunity to live in a residential area somewhere within the municipality. A zoning authority is not required to provide an accommodation if alternative housing opportunities exist for handicapped persons in other residential zones within its jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Jeanne and Robert McKivitz owned a dwelling in an area of Stowe Township zoned as an 'R-1' single-family residential district.
- In June 2007, the McKivitzes leased the property to five women who were recovering from drug and alcohol addiction, operating it as a 'three-quarter house.'
- The residents were required to remain sober, and one resident acted as a house supervisor in exchange for reduced rent.
- On June 12, 2007, Stowe Township Ordinance Officer William J. Savatt informed the McKivitzes that they were violating zoning ordinances by running a 'rooming house' in an R-1 district.
- The McKivitzes applied for a 'Certificate of Occupancy' to use the property as a 'three-quarter house' for 'disabled individuals.'
- On October 22, 2007, Savatt denied the application, stating that a 'three-quarter house' was not a permitted use in an R-1 district.
Procedural Posture:
- The McKivitzes appealed Savatt's denial of their Certificate of Occupancy to the Stowe Township Zoning Board of Adjustment ('the Board').
- On February 21, 2008, after a hearing, the Board affirmed Savatt's decision and denied what it treated as an implicit request for a variance.
- On March 24, 2008, the McKivitzes appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, a state trial court.
- On September 8, 2008, the McKivitzes filed a separate federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Savatt, the Township, and the Board.
- The McKivitzes (Plaintiffs) filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and the Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, on which the court is now ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a zoning authority's refusal to grant a variance to allow a group home for recovering addicts in a single-family residential zone violate the Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation requirement when other residential zones in the same municipality permit such homes?
Opinions:
Majority - Terrence F. McVerry, District Judge
No. A zoning authority's refusal to grant an accommodation does not violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA) if the accommodation is not necessary to provide handicapped persons with an equal opportunity to live in a residential area within the municipality. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that the requested accommodation is necessary. The court interpreted the FHA's guarantee of an opportunity to use and enjoy 'a dwelling' in the zoning context to mean a generic dwelling located in a residential area, not a specific dwelling of the individual's choice. Since Stowe Township's zoning ordinances permitted 'group residences' in other residential districts (R-2, R-3, and RC-2), the McKivitzes failed to show that the accommodation was necessary for the residents to live in a residential part of the township. Because the plaintiffs did not meet their initial burden of proving necessity, the burden never shifted to the defendants to prove the requested accommodation was unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'necessity' element for reasonable accommodation claims against zoning authorities under the Fair Housing Act. It interprets the FHA's 'equal opportunity' provision as guaranteeing access to housing in some residential area within a municipality, not in every specific neighborhood. This ruling places a significant initial burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate that no other suitable housing options exist within the entire jurisdiction before an accommodation is deemed necessary. Consequently, it provides municipalities a strong defense against such claims, so long as their overall zoning scheme allows for group homes in some residential districts.
