Candlehouse, Inc. v. Town of Vestal
| Decision Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-0093 (DEP) |
| Parties | CANDLEHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF VESTAL, NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
ABIGAIL SOUTHERLAND, ESQ.
LARRY L. CRAIN, ESQ.
CARLY F. GAMMILL, ESQ.
DAVID A. FRENCH, ESQ.
DAWN J. LANOUETTE, ESQ.
SARAH G. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
ROBERT J. HINDMAN, ESQ.
AGNIESZKA A. WILEWICZ, ESQ.
DAVID S. BERGER, ESQ.
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Candlehouse, Inc. ("Candlehouse"), the owner of residentially zoned property located in the Town of Vestal, New York ("Town"), has commenced this action against the Town based upon the refusal of the its Code Enforcement Officer and Zoning Board of Appeals to find that plaintiff's anticipated use of the property, as a Christian faith-based residential treatment facility for young women struggling with addiction or emotional disorders, is a permitted use of the property under the Town's zoning ordinances.1 In its complaint, Candlehouse asserts that the Town's refusal to allow its intended use of the property violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601. Plaintiff also alleges that the Town's restriction on its use of the premises constitutes an unlawful burden on its residents' religious exercise, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a).
Currently pending before the court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. In addition, plaintiff has applied for the issuance ofsanctions based upon defendant's alleged destruction of or failure to produce relevant evidence, and to strike the report of defendant's retained expert and preclude her from testifying at trial. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the defendant is entitled to the entry of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's disparate impact claim under the ADA and the FHA, and its RLUIPA cause of action, but that the existence of material disputes of fact preclude the entry of summary judgment in either party's favor with regard to plaintiff's intentional discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the ADA and FHA. In addition, I conclude that plaintiff's application for the issuance of sanctions is not yet ripe for determination, and that defendant's expert is precluded from testifying at trial with regard to several of the conclusions included in her report.
Plaintiff, which operates as Candlehouse Teen Challenge, is a Christian non-profit organization whose avowed function is "to restore individuals who struggle with life controlling problems such as alcohol abuse and/or who struggle with emotional disorders." Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 3. According to its mission statement, Candlehouse's purpose is to permit itsresidents "to live life together with freedom, peace and joy." Dkt. No. 70-2 at 1. Candlehouse is one of 234 accredited Teen Challenge programs operating nationwide, utilizing a program pioneered in 1958 by Rev. David Wilkerson. Dkt. No. 68-2 at ¶¶ 3,5. Candlehouse has operated as a Teen Challenge-affiliated residential center in New York for more than seventeen years, and for eight years prior to that as a non-affiliated center, assisting women to recover from the negative impacts of substance abuse and emotional disabilities. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 5. While students eligible for participation in the Candlehouse program who struggle with substance abuse are no longer chemically dependent, "they have demonstrated an inability to live independently and abstain from addiction in the long-term and/or live without support as a result of an emotional disability or illness." Id. at ¶ 12.
Students who enroll in the program typically reside at a Candlehouse facility between twelve and thirty-six months, depending upon their needs. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 9. During their stay, the students live in a family-like environment, in which they experience a daily regimen of activities that include Bible study, life skills classes, work assignments, community projects, religious worship, and free time. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 15.The goal of the Candlehouse program is to restore students suffering from the disabling affects of addiction or mental health issues to a point where they are capable of living independently, finding and maintaining employment, mending relationships with family members, and caring for themselves. Id. at ¶ 7.
Students enrolled in the Candlehouse program live, sleep, cook and eat together, and spend much of their days interacting with other students. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 17. The operators of Candlehouse prefer to locate the program's facilities in residential neighborhoods. Id. at ¶ 18. According to Candlehouse's director, Richard Mecklenborg, being situated in a residential neighborhood allows participating students to go outdoors, and motivates them to abstain from drug or alcohol abuse. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20.
In or about September 2008, Candlehouse purchased from the Episcopal Diocese of Syracuse two properties located at 400 Mirador Drive and 401 Mirador Drive, Vestal, New York ("Mirador property"). For the last fifty years, the Mirador property had been utilized as a church and accompanying church campus. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 24. Candlehouse's intent in acquiring the Mirador property was to combine its residential campus and work training programs with the religious component of the TeenChallenge programs, which includes Bible study and other classes. Id. at ¶ 22. It was contemplated that the residential program would support up to twelve students, plus two staff employees and a housemother. Id. at ¶ 25.
The Mirador property is located in a portion of the Town of Vestal designated as RA-1 residential district for zoning purposes. Dkt. No. 61 at ¶ 12. In pertinent part, Article IV, Section 25-151 of the Town's Zoning Code permits the following uses for such properties:
Dkt. No. 60-1 at 10. That same provision prohibits, inter alia, the following uses in RA-1 residential districts:
On September 23, 2008, Mecklenborg approached Mark Dedrick, the Town's Code Enforcement Officer ("CEO"), to discuss Candlehouse's interest in the Mirador property, and inquire as to whether it would be permitted to use the property as a church and residence for its students in light of the fact that the property is zoned as RA-1 residential. Dkt. No.70-1. The next day, Mecklenborg sent a letter to Dedrick indicating that the proposed use of the property was "to continue to use it as a church," and that Candlehouse's "regular services . . . offer women a temporary residence with counseling." Dkt. No. 70-1. In response, Dedrick wrote Mecklenborg a letter dated September 30, 2008, requesting additional information and advising Mecklenborg that temporary housing is not permitted in an RA-1 zoned district. Dkt. No. 61-2 at 2.
On October 12, 2008, Mecklenborg again wrote a letter to Dedrick providing the requested details concerning Candlehouse's proposed use of the Mirador property. Dkt. No. 61-3 at 2. More specifically, Mecklenborg explained that "temporary residents" could be anticipated to stay an average of thirteen months, and live together with three or more assigned to each bedroom. Id. at 2, 5.
On December 17, 2008, the Vestal Town Board discussed the proposed use of the Mirador property by Candlehouse during a public meeting. Dkt. No. 69-7. In that meeting, the Town's attorney stated that Candlehouse's proposed dormitory living quarters would be inconsistent with the RA-1 zoning regulation. Id. at 3. Following that meeting, residents in the neighborhood surrounding the Mirador property began tovoice their concerns over Candlehouse's proposed use. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 28; Dkt. No. 70-3. In an effort to assuage those concerns, Candlehouse held a neighborhood meeting on December 22, 2008, for the purpose of providing attendees with information concerning the contemplated use. Dkt. No. 70 at ¶ 29; Dkt. No. 70 Exh. E (traditionally filed, not electronically filed). At that meeting, both supporters and opponents to the proposed use spoke, although there was significantly more opposition than support voiced for the program. Dkt. No. 70 Exh. E (traditionally filed, not electronically filed). Four members of the Vestal Town Board attended that neighborhood meeting. Dkt. No. 69-3 at 5.
The topic of Candlehouse's plans for the Mirador property arose again during a Vestal Town Board meeting, held on January 14, 2009. Dkt. No. 69-8. At that meeting, five Town residents spoke out against the proposed use. Id.
O...
To continue reading
Request your trial