Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Sunday, January 03, 1999 Page:
Fairview’s zoning decision on group home was well-taken
Your editorial, “Fairview ruling reaffirms rights of the handicapped”
(Dec19), contains factual errors that need clarification. You begin by
asserting that “Fairview Township is now $18,500 poorer, but wiser…” because
the federal district court ruled against the township for attempting to bar a
group home for three mentally retarded men in Mountaintop’s residential
subdivision of Highland Woods.
The township settled for the amount quoted because that is the limit of its
insurance- thus avoiding any expense for the taxpayers. And there is no need
for supervisors to become “wiser” because throughout the controversy they and
all other township officials involved conducted themselves with civility and
fairness and, most important, they demonstrated their respect for and
knowledge of township laws.
Nor were township officials “spurred by residents”‘ unfounded fears about
neighborhood safety and property values” when they charged Human Services
Consultants Inc., the agency that owns and operates the group home, with
violating several provisions of the township’s zoning ordinance which includes
an occupancy permit for all property owners, whether private or businesses.
HSC then filed a petition to appeal to Fairview’s zoning hearing board,
which consequently ruled to uphold the zoning officer’s citation. By ruling in
favor of the group home, the federal court did not overturn the zoning hearing
board’s decision, but backed by the Fair Housing Act, it superseded the local
zoning ordinance.
And most definitely, no damage has been done to the township’s reputation,
as your editorial asserts. On the contrary, the dedicated volunteers serving
on the zoning hearing board discharged their duty to uphold and implement the
township’s ordinance in an exemplary manner. They made their decision only
after extensive and painstaking deliberations derived from evidence presented
at the public hearing and their interpretation of the applicable provision of
the township’s zoning ordinance, which clearly stipulates the exclusion of
“institutional group quarters” in an “R-1 single Family Residence District.”
Board members did not allow their decision to be swayed by editorial
opinions, off-the-record comments from residents or by the prevailing climate
of what is the politically correct thing to do.
The dilemma as it has presented itself in many communities- and will
continue to do- in regard to the establishment of group homes in residentially
zoned areas is due to the erosion of municipal autonomy from increasingly
intrusive federal jurisdiction, which can and does override that of a
township.
Anneliese Moghul
Mountaintop