Share
In Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, the Supreme Court of Washington addressed zoning and handicapped discrimination issues on a proposed group home for troubled teens that was denied a special use permit. The court found that under state law, the teens were not handicapped, but remanded for reconsideration because the city's rationale for the denial was not supported by the evidence.
In March 1993, Sunderland Family Treatment Services (SFTS) applied to the City of Pasco (City) for a special use permit to operate a group home for abused or neglected teens. The proposed home was an existing six-bedroom single-family residence located in a residential area. SFTS assured neighbors and the City that the home would not accept children using drugs or alcohol. No loud music, physical or verbal aggression, or smoking would be permitted. At least two full-time staff members would supervise the children. Neighbors circulated a petition opposing the special use permit. In June 1993, the city council denied the permit based on five findings: (1) the location, size, and intensity of the proposed use would not be harmonious with the existing neighborhood; (2) the home would house troubled children; (3) the home would impair the value of neighboring property; (4) it would concentrate juveniles at a single site with the high probability of bringing more noise, security concerns, and nuisance activity; (5) it would be better located in a more transitional neighborhood.
SFTS sought review and the superior court found that the city’s denial constituted handicapped discrimination under the Washington Housing Policy Act (WHPA). The court also found that the decision was not based on substantial evidence. The City appealed.
Regarding the WHPA claim, the Supreme Court of Washington noted that the act did not define "handicap," but rather referred to the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Under the FHA, "handicap" means: (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities, (2) a record of such impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. SFTS alleged impairment only under factors one and three. Under the regulations, a "physical or mental impairment" includes: any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. Also, under the regulations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (a precursor to the FHA), only physical and mental handicaps are included; not environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantages. The court found that the proposed residents were abused, homeless, neglected, or had nowhere else to go. Thus, they were not handicapped because abuse and neglect are environmental and cultural factors. Similarly, the third factor did not apply, as the teens were regarded as "troubled", not physically or mentally handicapped. Thus, the court reversed the finding that the City violated the WHPA by denying the permit.
TheCourt also reviewed the five findings of the City in denying the special permit. It found that the first, third, and fourth findings were not supported by the evidence in the record and overall, the findings did not justify denial. Therefore, it remanded this issue for reconsideration based on an updated record including changes in circumstances since the denial.
Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wash. 2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995).