Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21094, 544 F.3d 1201, 2008 WL 4498944 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Act, a requested accommodation in a zoning rule is 'reasonable' if it does not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme, and 'necessary' if it alleviates a need created by a person's handicap to afford them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Facts:
- Matthew Schwarz and his company, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., operated six halfway houses for clients enrolled in their outpatient substance abuse treatment programs in the City of Treasure Island, Florida.
- Residents of the halfway houses signed short-term leases, typically staying for an average of six to ten weeks, and were required to remain sober.
- The City of Treasure Island has a zoning ordinance, the 'occupancy-turnover rule,' which designates single-family or two-family dwellings with high tenant turnover as 'tourist dwellings' and prohibits them in certain residential districts.
- Four of Gulf Coast's houses were located in RM-15 districts, which permit multi-family dwellings not subject to the turnover rule, while two were in RU-75 districts, which are restricted to low-turnover single-family homes.
- Following complaints from neighbors about noise and high turnover, the City investigated Gulf Coast's properties.
- The City's Code Enforcement Board cited one of Schwarz's properties for violating the occupancy-turnover rule and imposed a fine of $250 per day.
- Subsequently, the City cited two more of Schwarz’s properties for violating the same ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Schwarz, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., and several residents sued the City of Treasure Island and its Code Enforcement Board in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The complaint alleged that the City's enforcement of a zoning ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act (RA), and the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their amended complaint.
- The district court granted final summary judgment in favor of the City on all claims.
- Gulf Coast, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment and the denial of leave to supplement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 city's refusal to waive its zoning ordinance limiting occupancy turnover for halfway houses for recovering substance abusers violate the Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Circuit Judge
Yes, in part. A city’s refusal to waive its zoning ordinance limiting occupancy turnover for halfway houses may violate the Fair Housing Act's reasonable accommodation provision if the accommodation is both reasonable and necessary, which depends on the specific zoning district and the therapeutic needs of the residents. The court held that the halfway houses were 'dwellings' under the FHA because residents treated them as homes and stays were longer than transient visits. The court rejected the disparate treatment and disparate impact claims due to a lack of evidence. On the reasonable accommodation claim, the court analyzed two key elements: reasonableness and necessity. Waiving the rule for the two houses in the RU-75 (single-family) zone was deemed unreasonable because it would cause a 'fundamental alteration' to the zone's essential character of stability and low turnover. However, waiving the rule for the four houses in the RM-15 zone was reasonable because that zone already permits multi-family dwellings with unlimited turnover, meaning low turnover is not an 'essential' aspect of the scheme. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine if the accommodation for the four RM-15 houses was 'necessary'—that is, whether living in these group homes is therapeutically required to ameliorate the residents' handicap and provide them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
Analysis:
This decision provides a nuanced framework for analyzing reasonable accommodation claims in the context of zoning. It clarifies that the 'reasonableness' of an accommodation is not a blanket inquiry but is highly dependent on the specific character and purpose of the particular zoning district at issue, establishing that rules which are not consistently applied or central to a zone's purpose are more likely to be waivable. Furthermore, the court's interpretation of 'necessity' reinforces that plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct causal link between their disability and the need for the specific housing arrangement to gain an equal opportunity. This holding guides lower courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into both the integrity of the zoning scheme and the therapeutic benefits of the proposed housing.
