Candlehouse, Inc. operates 234 accredited “Teen Challenge Programs” nationwide, which helps to restore individuals who struggle with life controlling problems such as alcohol abuse and/or emotional disorder. In September of 2008, Candlehouse purchased from the Episcopal Diocese of Syracuse, two properties located on Mirador Drive in Vestal, New York. For the past 50 years, the properties had been utilized as a church and Candlehouse’s intent in acquiring these properties was to combine its residential campus and work training programs with the religious component of the Teen Challenge Programs.
The properties are zoned as RA-1 residential district, which prohibits a boarding house for more than 4 transient roomers. Upon acquiring the property, Candlehouse began discussions with the Town of Vestal’s Code Enforcement Officer Mark Dedrick about whether the proposed use of the property could be tailored into the accepted uses in the residential district. Several letters were exchanged back and forth between the parties for a year, at which point it became clear to Candlehouse that the Town did not consider the living quarters proposed by Candlehouse to be consistent with the proposed use. Dedrick eventually denied the application by Candlehouse to construct a residence for its program because the proposed inhabitants did not constitute a family/functional equivalent of a family under the Town of Vestal Code.
Candlehouse appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), who after a hearing filled with public comments from residents against the project, issued a decision concluding that Candlehouse does not meet the definition of functional equivalent of a family because of the inability to resemble a traditional family unit with transient, as opposed to permanent, residents, who dorm in the same room (unconventional bedroom) on bunk-beds. Candlehouse commenced the present action against the Town.
Candlehouse alleges that the Town discriminated against Candlehouse on the basis of handicap in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA); the Town discriminated based upon disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and; the Town has placed a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Before addressing the issues on its merits, the Court determines Candlehouse has standing because it suffered a concrete injury when the ZBA decided its program failed to qualify as the functional equivalent of a family and because its students comprise a class of individuals, all or some who possess discrimination claims of their own, and those interests align with that of the plaintiff, thereby giving Candlehouse organizational standing.
The Court’s first substantive issue is whether the plaintiff can establish that its students are handicapped under the FHA, or disabled under the ADA. To demonstrate a disability under the FHA or ADA, a plaintiff must show; (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) a record of having such an impairment, or; (3) that he is regarded as having such an impairment. The Court introduces a 3-part test from the Supreme Court to determine whether an individual’s alleged impairment constitutes a disability or a handicap under the FHA or ADA. (1) Whether the plaintiff suffers from impairment; if so (2) the court must identify any major life activity potentially limited by the impairment, and (3) the court must ask whether the impairment substantially limits major life activity. The status of Candlehouse’s students are disputed because a potential student need not suffer from alcoholism or drug addiction in order to qualify for admission, instead the only requirement for admission is that the candidate is suffering from a “life controlling issue” (which is undefined). Due to this dispute, the parties essentially ask the Court to define the threshold of how many students must be disabled in order to be handicapped under the FHA or ADA. Taking its cue from the second circuit, the Court holds that a majority of the students must be disabled in order to qualify. The evidence on record however only indicates the records of 11 out of 110 students, which is clearly not a majority. The Court denies both parties motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Candlehouse serves a sufficient number of disabled students due to the incomplete record and existence of genuine disputes of material fact. This has the effect of denying all of Candlehouse’s motions for summary judgment on all its FHA and ADA claims.
The Town seeks summary judgment on Candlehouse’s claim that the Town engaged in intentional discrimination by denying the application to have its proposed use of the property be considered a functional equivalent of a family. This issue turns on whether there was a discriminatory animus as a motivating factor behind that decision. The Court points to the considerable evidence on record reflecting the many residents, including Town Board members, who were unsupportive of the Candlehouse project. However, the turning point for the Court was the conduct of the ZBA during the hearing to acknowledge the issues the project has garnered in the community, thus proving the ZBA was at least aware of the community sentiment, which leaves a genuine dispute as to whether the knowledge of the issues present with the project influenced ZBA members decision to deny Candlehouse’s appeal. Therefore, because the Court determined that there is a genuine issue as to whether the ZBA exercised discriminatory intent when it denied the plaintiff’s appeal, the Town’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is dismissed.
Next, turning to Candlehouse’s claim that the Town’s application of the zoning ordinance and its decision to find the use was not the functional equivalent of a family resulted in a disparate impact upon Candlehouse’s disabled residents. The Court says in order to survive the Town’s motion for summary judgment on this issue, Candlehouse is required to show some analytical mechanism to determine disproportionate impact. Both parties concede the ordinance is facially neutral, therefore Candlehouse must prove the ordinance predictably discriminates against their students as a whole (and not as separate groups for drug addicts, alcoholics, etc…). The Court concludes that because the plaintiff has submitted no analytics to show disparate impact, nor had they submitted evidence that the Town knew its ordinance would predictably discriminate against Candlehouse’s students, the Town’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is granted.
The Town’s next motion for summary judgment is in contention of the plaintiff’s argument that the Town failed to make reasonable accommodations under the FHA or ADA. In order to prevail on this claim, Candlehouse must show that, but for the accommodation, its residents will likely be denied equal opportunity to enjoy housing of their choice. The Court finds there are still disputed material facts on this issue because the plaintiff alleges the correspondences indicated an unwillingness to accommodate, while the Town argues the correspondence simply lays out rationale that does not implicate the impairments of the students as the basis for denial. The Town advanced the concerns of maintain the character and nature of single-family neighborhoods, and to avoid a fundamental alteration of the zoning scheme by permitting the use and the density of the use. The Court determines that because some of the Board members were biased against Candlehouse and its proposal, the Town cannot succeed on its summary judgment claim, and therefore denies it.
With respect to the question of whether the Town violated RLUIPA by placing a substantial burden on religious exercise, the Court was not persuaded by Candlehouse’s contentions that separate facilities constitute a financial burden on a religious organization, as well as separate facilities prevent the program from carrying out its religious functions to its totality, and determinds that they had not met their burden to prove the ordinances and the ZBA’s determination they did not meet the functional equivalent of a family, thereby failing to submit evidence giving rise to a dispute of fact. Therefore, the Court granted the Town’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.
The other issues in this case were the ability of the Town’s expert to testify and whether Candlehouse could be awarded damages for violations by the Town during the discovery process. The Court partially precludes the expert from testifying at trial because testimony regarding Candlehouse’s resident’s disabilities was unfounded due to no solid research. Finally, the Court concludes the claim against the Town for violations during discovery are not ripe until the final pretrial conference.
Candlehouse Inc., v. Town of Vestal, 2013 WL 1867114 (May 3, 2013)
The opinion may be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-3_11-cv-00093/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-3_11-cv-0
0093-0.pdf