Essling's Homes Plus v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 12 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.04-1115(MJD/JGL).,CIV.04-1115(MJD/JGL). |
| Citation | 356 F.Supp.2d 971 |
| Parties | ESSLING'S HOMES PLUS, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, d/b/a Scenic Hills Alternative Care; Judith Essling; and Bridget Essling, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Joanne M. Haase, Peter Daniel Gray, and Timothy J. Nolan, Rider Bennett, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs.
Eric Douglas Larson, Saint Paul City Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant City of Saint Paul ("the City") for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court heard oral argument on September 8, 2004. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Court shall grant summary judgment as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Judith Essling and Bridget Essling, but it denies the remainder of Defendant's motion.
This suit involves two properties in the same neighborhood: 2187 Bonnie Lane (the "Bonnie Lane" residence) and 2170 Snowshoe Lane (the "Snowshoe Lane" residence). Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act (collectively, the "FHAA"), as well as the Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
In 1990, Plaintiff Judith Essling constructed a single-family home at 2187 Bonnie Lane, Saint Paul, Minnesota (the "Bonnie Lane" residence). The Bonnie Lane residence has three levels, each of which has at least one bedroom and a bathroom. The property is located in a neighborhood zoned R-LL (Residential Large Lot), which is a single-family residential zoning district. See ST. PAUL LEG. CODE §§ 60.406-409 (2003) (concerning R-LL districts).
The City's zoning code permits buildings in a single-family residential zoning district to have only one dwelling unit. See ST. PAUL LEG. CODE §§ 60.204 (2003) ("D.Dwelling"), 60.406 (2003) (permitting low-density, one-family dwellings in areas zoned R-LL), & 60.412(1) (2003) (permitting "[o]ne-family detached dwellings"). The Saint Paul Legislative Code defines a dwelling unit as "[a] building, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and cooking or eating purposes." ST. PAUL LEG. CODE. § 60.204.D (2003).
In 1992, a second kitchen was added to the lower level of the Bonnie Lane residence. In September of that year, the City's Licensing, Inspections, and Environmental Protection ("LIEP") department discovered that the home's lower level was rented out to tenants, and it concluded that the residence was two separate dwelling units in violation of the neighborhood's zoning codes.
In a letter dated October 6, 1992, the City's LIEP department ordered that the additional tenants vacate the premises, and it ordered the removal of a lock separating the upper and lower levels. The letter did not specify removal of either kitchen. Judith Essling complied with the City's order, and the City concluded its investigation.
In April 1993, the Minnesota Department of Human Services ("DHS") issued Bonnie Lane its first adult-foster-care license, for use on the lower level of that building. The DHS informed the City of Plaintiff's intent to use the home for adult foster care. See MINN. R. 9555.6125, subp. 6 (2003) (requiring DHS to notify local zoning administrators of license applications). An adult foster care home is a residence licensed by the State of Minnesota, providing 24-hour foster care to no more than four functionally impaired residents. M inn. R. § 9555.5105, subp. 5 (2003). Under the Saint Paul Legislative Code, adult foster care is a permissible use of homes in R-LL zones. St. Paul Leg. Code § 60.412(9) (2003).
Plaintiff Essling's Homes Plus, Inc., ("Homes Plus") was permitted to use the Bonnie Lane residence as a foster care home housing elderly persons who require 24-hour assistance. All of the residents are unable to live alone due to their physical, emotional, or developmental impairments. These impairments include blindness, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. Many of those residents have limited mobility and rely on wheelchairs, walkers, and/or electric hospital beds.
In May 1998, the Minnesota DHS issued a second foster-care license for the property. The license was granted for the following location, as written on the application: "2187 Bonnie Lane Apt. 2." The DHS has stated that it issued the second license "on the commissioners' understanding that the setting was a duplex, but it is not a duplex." Plaintiffs deny that Judith Essling wrote the notation of "Apt. 2" on the application, noting that the handwriting appears to different in that portion. Plaintiffs also deny that the DHS was misled into thinking that the residence was divided, noting that the application form indicated that the Bonnie Lane residence was a "single-family" house and that the box for multi-family homes remained unchecked.
In September 2003, the City investigated complaints that the use of the Bonnie Lane residence was in violation of the applicable R-LL zoning. On September 19, 2003, the City inspected the Bonnie Lane home. The City determined that eleven persons were residing at 2187 Bonnie Lane — ten clients and one staff person. The Saint Paul Legislative Code limits single-family occupancy to four persons who are unrelated. ST. PAUL. LEG. CODE § 60.207.F ("Family") ("Every additional group of four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered a separate family for the purpose of this code."). But for adult foster care homes, state law preempts the City's occupancy limits and permits six unrelated persons (five clients and one staff person) to reside in a single-family residence. MINN. STAT. § 245A.11, subd. 2 (2003) (later 2004 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 288 (West) (H.F.2277)).
The Minnesota DHS also discovered that ten residents were living in the Bonnie Lane residence. On October 16, 2003, the Minnesota DHS mailed a violation letter placing Plaintiffs' licenses on conditional status for six months and requiring that the number of Bonnie Lane residents be reduced to five by April 15, 2004.
On September 25, 2003, three weeks before the DHS's violation letter, the City sent Plaintiffs a letter stating that the Bonnie Lane residence constituted "a building with two dwelling units" because "its lower level group of rooms [were] designed for living, sleeping and cooking or eating and its separate group of rooms [were] designed for living, sleeping and cooking or eating on the second and third levels." The City also found that because the residence had two kitchens, the lower-level residents "were able to live, sleep, cook, and eat without using the living, sleeping, cooking, and eating facilities on the second and third levels," and vice versa. The City then ordered Plaintiffs to "remove one of the kitchens in the building in its entirety."
On October 12, 2003, Plaintiffs appealed the Saint Paul zoning administrator's Bonnie Lane decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"), which upheld that decision after a public hearing on November 24, 2003. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Saint Paul City Council, which upheld the BZA decision after a hearing on January 7, 2004.
The second residence at issue is located at 2170 Snowshoe Lane (the "Snowshoe Lane" residence), which is only a few blocks away from the Bonnie Lane residence. Both properties are located in an R-LL (Residential Large Lot) zoning district, which is restricted to single-family properties; both properties are operated by Plaintiff Essling's Homes Plus. The primary issue regarding the Snowshoe lane residence is the City's denial of Plaintiff's request to install a second kitchen.
On July 23, 2003, Judith Essling filed a general building permit application to "remodel attached garage — make bedroom & kitchenette." In this handwritten portion of the application, a line was drawn through the word "kitchenette." The City's LIEP department approved the application and issued the permit with the following remarks:
OK per zoning. No `kitchenette' permitted in basement. (None shown on current plan).... No 2nd dwelling unit permitted.
In February 2004, Judith Essling told City LIEP Zoning Specialist Hardwick that she hoped to install a sink, garbage disposal, and ceramic cook top in the lower level of the Snowshoe Lane residence. She asked Hardwick to allow the second kitchen as a reasonable accommodation to her clients. In an advisory letter dated February 19, 2004, Hardwick informed Essling that "adding a kitchen to the lower level would not be allowed because that would, when combined with the bedrooms, bathroom and living room on that level, in effect create a second dwelling unit in the house."
The City has admitted in its responses to discovery that the City's zoning ordinances "do not state that adding a second kitchen to a single-family residential dwelling converts the property into a duplex or multi-family residential dwelling." Plaintiffs have also provided evidence showing that over 100 single-family residences in Saint Paul have two kitchens.
As a threshold issue, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Judith Essling and Bridget Essling do not have standing to sue in their individual capacities. Rather, Defendant argues, the real party in interest is their co-owned corporation, Plaintiff Essling's Homes Plus, Inc.
A plaintiff's standing is subject to the following two limitations:
(1) constitutional limitations on federal jurisdiction, requiring a "case" or "controversy" under Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution and
(2) prudential limitations on its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salau v. Denton
...successful action for declaratory judgment requires a viable underlying cause of action." Essling's Homes Plus, a Minn. Corp. v. City of St. Paul, a Minn. Corp. , 356 F.Supp.2d 971, 984 (D.Minn.2004). "A declaratory judgment is itself a remedy, not a cause of action." Sprint Commc'ns Co., L......
-
Daywitt v. Minnesota
...Inc. v. Crossroads Econ. Dev., 977 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted)). See also Essling's Homes Plus, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 356 F. Supp. 2d 971, 984 (D. Minn. 2004) ("A successful action for declaratory judgment requires a viable underlying cause of action."). G. Count ......
-
Wickner v. Rose
...as alleged in Plaintiff's other claims. (See Id., Claims for Relief at ¶¶ 1-2). See gen., Essling's Homes Plus, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 356 F. Supp. 2d 971, 984 (D. Minn. 2004) ("A successful action for declaratory judgment requires a viable underlying cause of action."). 4. While the Mar......
-
Spine Imaging Mri, L.L.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Civil No. 09–1963 (JRT/AJB).
...The Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 555.01 et seq. , requires an underlying controversy. See Essling's Homes Plus, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 356 F.Supp.2d 971, 984 (D.Minn.2004) (“A successful action for declaratory judgment requires a viable underlying cause of action.”). “[O]nly p......