()

District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Nonprofit Rehab. Support Servs. Inc. (RSS) provides residential services to the disabled. RSS sought to build two residences— “community residences” under Albany’s Zoning Code—housing persons at a site located in Albany’s R-2A zone, which is a “one and two-family residential district.” To do so required a use variance. RSS’s Oct. 25, 2016, amended complaint alleged that Albany’s zoning ordinance, as applied to “community residences” is facially discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act. On competing motions, the court granted Albany summary judgment. Discussing Get Back Up Inc. v. City of Detroit, and distinguishing Human Resources Res. & Mgmt. Grp. Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk, the court held RSS did not present evidence allowing a reasonable jury to find Albany’s R-2A zoning ordinance facially discriminatory. It offered no evidence suggesting it was singled out or treated differently from similarly situated residences allowed a special permit in an R-2A zone as of right or need. The burdens Albany’s zoning ordinance imposes on RSS are also shared by rooming houses and apartment buildings. Thus, RSS failed to make out a prima facie case of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment.

District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Nonprofit Rehab. Support Servs. Inc. (RSS) provides residential services to the disabled. RSS sought to build two residences— “community residences” under Albany’s Zoning Code—housing persons at a site located in Albany’s R-2A zone, which is a “one and two-family residential district.” To do so required a use variance. RSS’s Oct. 25, 2016, amended complaint alleged that Albany’s zoning ordinance, as applied to “community residences” is facially discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act. On competing motions, the court granted Albany summary judgment. Discussing Get Back Up Inc. v. City of Detroit, and distinguishing Human Resources Res. & Mgmt. Grp. Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk, the court held RSS did not present evidence allowing a reasonable jury to find Albany’s R-2A zoning ordinance facially discriminatory. It offered no evidence suggesting it was singled out or treated differently from similarly situated residences allowed a special permit in an R-2A zone as of right or need. The burdens Albany’s zoning ordinance imposes on RSS are also shared by rooming houses and apartment buildings. Thus, RSS failed to make out a prima facie case of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment.