2901 EVERETT AVE 2019-06-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

f 7. At hearing,the City submitted legal argument regarding the City's obligations under the federal Fair Housing Act(FHA). Exhibit 1, citing 42 U S.C. §3601 et seq. City legal staff i noted that the FHA is a broad mandate prohibiting discrimination against certain protected characteristics, including disabilities,in a number of housing practices including local land I use laws and policies. The City contended that the City must grant a request for a reasonable accommodation from a zoning regulation(such as off-street parking standards) if such accommodations are necessary to afford[disabled]persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ..." 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B). The City argued that a request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if there is no disability-related need for the I requested accommodation. Exhibits I and 7;Argument of Katie Rathbun. x r u 8. City Staff expressed support for the Appellants' mission to provide safe housing to 1 members of various vulnerable City populations. However, Staff asserted that the City is obliged to apply its zoning regulations consistently and avoid waiving regulations when waiver is not lawfully required. In this case,the City asserted that there is no relationship between the requested accommodation and disabilities of residents or proposed residents, because the housing is already available to disabled persons and because the additional rooms are expressly intended to serve "vulnerable" and "at-risk" members of the community, who while deserving of assistance are not members of classes protected by the 3 FHA. The roominghouse, at its approved number of rooms and parking stalls,is accessible = to disabled individuals (a protected characteristic), economically disadvantaged individuals (not a protected characteristic),and all other individuals(protected or not) without resorting to a reasonable accommodation;therefore,the City must apply the standards of the zoning code without waiving any requirements. The City argued that the denial of the requested reasonable accommodation was correct based on the proposal as stated in the application for reasonable accommodation. Exhibits 1 and 7; Teresa Weldon Testimony; Katie Rathbun Argument. i 1 CONCLUSIONS a Jurisdiction: i Pursuant to EMC 15.16,090.A.2,the Everett Hearing Examiner has jurisdictional authority to hear and decide appeals from .clministrative decisions of the Planning Director. t Criteria and Standards for Review: Pursuant to EMC 15.24.400,the City's Hearing Examiner shall take appropriate action including affirming,reversing,or remanding. Pursuant to EMC 15.24.370 Appeals,the burden of proof belongs to the Appellant. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. Persons without disabilities are not members of a protected class pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Act and therefore are not eligible for reasonable accommodation under the i act. See 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. t i 2. As stated in the proposal,the Appellants anticipate that many tenants (disabled and non- s. a disabled)would not have cars and would not need parking. Given these facts,there is no i Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 1 Everett Hearing Examiner Bryson Appeal,APP-17-001 c page 4 of 5 ) N. 1