Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill

Decision Date10 September 1992
Docket NumberCiv. No. 92-1150.
Citation799 F. Supp. 450
PartiesOXFORD HOUSE, INC., and John Does One through Seven (Prospective Residents of 911 South King's Highway), Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James Katz, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Tomar, Simonoff, Adourian & O'Brien, Haddonfield, N.J., for plaintiffs.

Francine I. Axelrad, Mun. Atty., Cherry Hill, N.J., for defendant.

OPINION

GERRY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs are a group home for recovering drug addicts and alcoholics and its residents. They seek a preliminary injunction from this court preventing the Township of Cherry Hill from interfering with their rental and occupancy of a house located in a single family residential zone in Cherry Hill. The complaint and an application for a temporary restraining order were filed on March 20, 1992, after the Township refused to issue plaintiffs a Certificate of Occupancy ("C.O.") on the grounds that they failed to meet the definition of a "single family" under the Township's zoning ordinance. Without this C.O., plaintiffs were prohibited under the zoning ordinance from occupying the house. The complaint charges that Cherry Hill's action constitutes discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. On the day the suit was filed, this court issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Township from interfering with the immediate occupancy of the house by plaintiffs. A preliminary injunction hearing was subsequently held on May 14, 1992. Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction will be granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Parties

1. Plaintiff, Oxford House, Inc., is a Maryland, not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporation which assists in the establishment of housing for recovering alcoholics and substance abusers. Oxford House, Inc. serves as the umbrella organization for a national network of approximately 400 individual Oxford Houses, approximately 20 of which are located in New Jersey.

2. Plaintiffs, John Does One through Seven, are current residents of a newly-established Oxford House located at 911 South Kings Highway in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. They are all recovering alcoholics and substance abusers in need of housing, and they each have completed a rehabilitation program for either alcoholism or drug abuse prior to moving into the house.

3. Defendant, Township of Cherry Hill, is a municipal corporation located in Camden County, New Jersey, organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Cherry Hill exercises zoning authority over the land within its borders.

4. Oxford Houses are not health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, or supervised halfway houses. They are simply residential dwellings rented by a group of individuals who are recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction. Three basic rules govern the functioning of all Oxford Houses: each house must 1) be democratically self-governed by its residents, 2) be financially self-supporting, and 3) immediately expel any resident who relapses into drug and/or alcohol use. No professional treatment, therapy, or paid staff is provided. Unlike a boarding house, where a proprietor is responsible to run and operate the premises, at Oxford House, the residents are responsible for their own food and care as well as for running the home. Because the house must be self-supporting, each of the residents needs a source of income to pay his or her fair share of the expenses.1

5. Oxford House, Inc. has entered into a contract with the State of New Jersey to administer a revolving loan fund, which makes start-up loans to help establish group homes for recovering alcoholics and substance abusers throughout the state. New Jersey set up this loan fund in accordance with the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 300x-4a, under which states are required to initiate such loan funds in order to receive federal block grant funds for alcohol and drug abuse and mental health services under the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300x and 300x-2. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, groups of four or more recovering alcoholics or substance abusers who want to live in a group home are entitled to a loan of up to $4,000 to cover the start-up expenses of renting a house, including the security deposit and first month's rent. The loan must be repaid within two years. In order to be eligible for the funds, the houses must operate according to the basic Oxford House model; i.e., they must: 1) be democratically self-governing; 2) be financially self-supporting; and 3) prohibit the use of illegal drugs or alcohol on the premises and immediately expel any resident who resumes the use of drugs or alcohol.2 See 42 U.S.C. § 300x-4a(a)(6).

6. Although Oxford House, Inc. provides assistance in setting up individual houses and provides technical support initially, once established, an individual Oxford House is no longer subject to direct, ongoing control by Oxford House, Inc. The residents of the house make all of the decisions regarding the management of the house, including decisions concerning new residents. This helps the residents to develop a sense of responsibility and self-esteem, which are important ingredients to a successful recovery.

7. Oxford House, Inc. attempts to locate houses in clean, drug-free, single family neighborhoods that will provide the occupants a sense of pride and self-worth. Oxford House, Inc. has found that the location of these houses in such neighborhoods plays a crucial role in an individual's recovery by promoting self-esteem, helping to create an incentive not to relapse, and avoiding the temptations that the presence of drug trafficking can create.

8. There is no limit on the amount of time an individual may reside in an Oxford House; as long as she does not resume the use of drugs or alcohol, meets the requisite financial obligations and does not engage in disruptive behavior, an individual could reside in an Oxford House indefinitely. At one of the original Oxford Houses, a resident stayed for 16 years. Most stay for shorter periods of time, however. In another Oxford House in Cherry Hill, which has been operating for two years, the average length of stay of the current residents has been six months to a year.

B. The Dispute

9. Early this year, Oxford House, Inc. made a decision to open up another house in Cherry Hill because the existing houses in Camden County were unable to meet the demand for suitable housing for recovering alcoholics and substance abusers in the area. Accordingly, in February of 1992, pursuant to Oxford House, Inc.'s contractual obligation with the State of New Jersey, it entered into a lease with a property management firm, Realco Management Inc., to rent the premises at 911 South Kings Highway for use as an Oxford House. In connection with this lease, a check in the amount of $2,875.00 was drawn from the New Jersey revolving loan fund and paid to Realco on March 5, 1992 to cover the first month's rent and security deposit. Oxford House, Inc. intended to have the house occupied beginning on March 15, 1992.

10. 911 South Kings Highway is a detached single family house located in a single family residential zone under the Township's zoning ordinance. The property is located on a well-traveled street. Across the street from the house are a commercial office, two apartment complexes, a florist, and several offices in residential properties. On the same side of the street as the house are an office complex, a contractor who works out of his home, and residences mixed in with offices in residence-type buildings. Behind the house are another set of offices, as well as single family residences and duplexes.

11. Subsequent to entering into the lease with Oxford House, Realco applied to the Township for a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to Township Ordinance 75-11, which requires a landlord to obtain a C.O. prior to any rental, including the rental of a single family home.3 In order for a C.O. to be issued, the proposed use of the property must comply with the Township's zoning ordinance, as well as the Township's property maintenance code.

12. On March 11, 1992, Bernard Rosen, an inspector from Cherry Hill, inspected the premises pursuant to Realco's C.O. application. At the time of the inspection, he was informed that the prospective tenant was to be Oxford House. Mr. Rosen then informed Realco that he would have to report to the Township that Oxford House was the prospective tenant, and he told Realco that this "was a problem." Rosen subsequently did inform the Township's Director of Community Development, William Ragozine, that the house was to be occupied by Oxford House.

13. On the same day as Rosen's inspection, Francine Axelrad, attorney for Cherry Hill, wrote to Realco informing them that their application for a C.O. had been denied.4 Her letter stated that the basis for the denial was that "Oxford House does not satisfy the definition of a single family under the Township's Zoning Ordinance."5

14. As a result of this letter, Realco Management sought to return the first month's rent and security deposit and sever its relationship with Oxford House. On March 20, 1992, however, this court entered a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Township from interfering with plaintiffs' occupancy of 911 South Kings Highway. Pursuant to that order, the Township reinspected the premises for maintenance code violations and, finding no such violations, issued a C.O. on March 30, 1992.

15. Since April 1, 1992, 911 South Kings Highway has been occupied by a group of recovering alcoholics and substance abusers. Since that time, there have been no complaints from the neighbors or anyone else concerning the use of the premises.

16. In addition to 911 South Kings Highway,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., No. 02-CV-711.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 2004
    ...the court explained in Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1501-02 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450, 462 n. 25 (D.N.J.1992)), making "a reasonable accommodation involves changing some rule that is generally applicable so as to m......
  • Swanston v. City of Plano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 27, 2021
    ...evidence on this facet of reasonableness and Plano presents practically no evidence on this point, see Oxford House, Inc. v. Twp. of Cherry Hill , 799 F. Supp. 450, 462 (D.N.J. 1992), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden whether their requested accommodation requires Plano ......
  • Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, Va., Civ. A. No. 2:92CV980.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • July 2, 1993
    ...groups of more than four persons who desire congregate living arrangements. Plaintiffs' reliance on Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.J.1992) and Ardmore, Inc. v. City of Akron, No. 90 CV 1083, 1990 WL 385236 (N.D.Ohio 1990) is similarly unavailing because ......
  • Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • February 23, 1999
    ...so as to make its burden less onerous on the handicapped individual.'" 46 F.3d at 1501 (quoting Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450, 462 n. 25 (D.N.J.1992)). Plaintiff in Bangerter did not challenge an ordinance that was generally applicable, and a reasonable acco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Troubles at the doorstep: the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and group homes for recovering substance abusers.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 No. 2, December 1995
    • December 1, 1995
    ...III.B (discussing judicial analysis of the "reasonable accommodations" clause). (23) See Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F. Supp. 450, 456 n. 11 (D.N.J. 1992) (describing the testimony of Oxford House residents who found that the program makes "the difference of night and......
  • Zoning Ordinances and the Fair Housing Amendments Act
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 26-2, February 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...Oxford House, Inc. v. Babylon, 819 F.Supp. 1179, 1181 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). 21. Id. at 1186; Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450, 463-66 (D.N.J. 1992); United States Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W.D.Wis. 1992); Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Sup......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT