Gregory v. State, Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals, 85-118-A

• Decision Date: 17 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85-118-A,85-118-A
• Citation: 495 A.2d 997
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles E. GREGORY et al. v. STATE of Rhode Island, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, RETARDATION AND HOSPITALS. ppeal.

Page 997

495 A.2d 997

Charles E. GREGORY et al. v. STATE of Rhode Island, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, RETARDATION AND HOSPITALS.

No. 85-118-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 17, 1985.

Joanne Glod, C.R. Bengtson, Carroll Kelly & Murphy, Providence, for plaintiff.

John Breguet, Chief Legal Officer for State Dept. of MHRH, Arlene Violet, Atty. Gen., Constance Messore, Thomas Martin, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Diane Curran, R.I. Legal Services as amicus curiae, Providence, for defendants.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This case presents for our review a narrow and unremarkable problem involving the construction of terms contained in a common restrictive covenant found in the parties' deeds. The broader issue providing the context for this case, however, is the complicated and emotional dilemma of where in our communities group homes for our mentally retarded citizens belong. The Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (DMHRH), the defendant in this case, has requested our review of the ruling by a Superior Court justice enjoining the DMHRH from building a group home for six mentally retarded adults on Cooke Drive in Scituate, Rhode Island. ¹ We reverse.

The plaintiffs in this action are all homeowners on or near Cooke Drive. The Gregorys' ² property abuts the wooded lot that is owned by the DMHRH and targeted for development as a group home. The real estate owned by all the plaintiffs and by the DMHRH is subject to the following restrictive covenant:

"Said lot is also conveyed subject to the following restrictions: That only a single one-family dwelling house, not to exceed 2 1/2 stories in height, and other buildings incidental thereto, shall be built or placed thereon; * * * that said premises shall be used for private residential purposes only." (Emphasis added.)

In November of 1984 the Gregorys commenced suit in Superior Court seeking a preliminary injunction to prohibit construction of the group home alleging that its placement in their neighborhood would be in violation of the "single one-family dwelling" and "residential purposes only" language contained in their common restrictive covenant.

At the hearings on the preliminary injunction, the Gregorys argued that the DMHRH is bound by the terms of the restrictive covenant and that a group home is institutional and commercial in nature, falling decidedly outside the definitional scope of a "single one-family dwelling." They further expressed commonly held fears that the presence of the group home would depress property values and "destroy the integrity * * * [and] the tranquility of the neighborhood that we enjoy and paid for." Neither homeowner testifying seriously objected to the physical appearance of the proposed three-bedroom group home except to question whether it would acquire an "institutional flavor" from the existence of a concrete walkway surrounding the home and other accommodations necessary for wheelchair access. The homeowners' position was, perhaps, best summarized by a neighbor, who testified:

"[L]et me just say I have supported the concept in the sense that I believe in the necessity of providing adequate and appropriate services for the mentally retarded, and I would have to tell you I voted in favor of the bond issue on a previous occasion to provide funding for this type of thing. I do feel, however, that the State, notwithstanding its desire and intentions to carry out that type of program, has an obligation to locate these homes in such a way that they do not adversely impact upon the neighborhoods where they are located, and I do feel that mixed neighborhoods, where there is a combination of residential and business use, are perhaps more appropriate for this type of activity, given the mix or the hybrid nature of the activity in the sense that it certainly has business characteristics, and yet, at the same time, I do not dispute the fact many of the activities are the same activities that go on in my home and your home and everyone else's home, but I believe that the State really has an obligation to act in a responsible manner, and to locate these homes appropriately, and that my feeling is that there is sufficient land around where this particular home could be built, in a different type of area, without infringing upon the rights of the people that have bought and owned and have invested in this particular neighborhood."

Doctor Robert L. Carl, Jr., testified for the DMHRH in his capacity as Executive Director for Retardation for the State of Rhode Island. As the developer of the group-home concept in Rhode Island, Dr. Carl described for the court the organization and day-to-day functioning of a group home. He characterized the group home as a "family-style living arrangement" for a small group of compatible retarded persons who would "live together, work together, would grow together, [and] would grow old together." He also stated that in terms of composition, the residents of the Scituate group home would be severely retarded individuals, some of whom would need wheelchairs for mobility, and some of whom would need more help than others with routine tasks.

Doctor Carl told the court that an average day for the resident of a group home involves rising around seven o'clock, taking care of routine personal needs like washing, shaving, dressing, fixing breakfast, and, if necessary, lunch, and then heading out for the day, five days a week, either to school or to a work situation. While the residents of the group home attend school or work, the staff of the home, one to three persons on duty on a rotating schedule, twenty-four hours a day, clean or do the grocery shopping or perform other related tasks. Upon returning from school or work, the residents share responsibility for chores around the house, cook dinner, and watch television or attend dances or movies or participate in other activities before bed. When necessary, the residents are assisted by a staff member.

The residents are individually responsible for choosing their clothing and other personal effects and plan meals with the help of a flexible, nutrition-conscious menu plan. The group home does its own grocery shopping; laundry is done in the home; and medical attention, like necessary physical therapy, is provided during work or school or at a medical office. Transportation is usually provided by the group home's vehicle.

In describing the role of the trained staff, Dr. Carl analogized it to "a parent-like kind of arrangement, making sure someone arrives someplace and hopefully advocating on behalf of the folks to make sure they are receiving appropriate developmental or educational or vocational-type of services." In summing up the functional aspects of a group home, Dr. Carl explained, "It's just like home, and that's of course, what this program is all about, being in a situation [where] we can guarantee a small, personal family-style living arrangement, and that's really what we're all about."

Doctor Carl further addressed himself to the problem of what types of communities are appropriate for group homes. He disagreed with the homeowners who offered the suggestion that group homes properly belong in neighborhoods containing a mixture of residential and commercial uses and not in purely residential communities. In explaining why a "mixed" neighborhood would be inappropriate, Dr. Carl stated:

"We're not looking for some kind of a transitional neighborhood, or neighborhood that has truck deliveries, and those kind of things. * * * These are folks who need to have the opportunity to live in a small family-style neighborhood situation, and it would be totally inappropriate, we think, to seek out those kinds of transitional neighborhoods as the optimal place to live. We are looking for nice neighborhoods, and places where we think [it] would be most conducive to growth, development, safety, to the kind of securities that all the rest of us are looking for in our neighborhoods."

The DMHRH also presented an expert real estate appraiser who had prepared a report studying the impact of eight Rhode Island group homes on their communities. Among the factors considered were resale value of neighboring homes, length of time to resale, neighbor reactions to the presence of the group home, and the demand generated by the group home for related support services like fire and police protection. The report concluded that "there is no basis for the assumption[s] that property values decrease in neighborhoods where group homes are located * * * [and] based on the personal reactions of [the] neighbors, we find that there are no adverse feelings."

The trial justice ruled that construction of the group home on Cooke Drive would violate the...