4 8 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

Ap art from the 19 90 op ini on , we have a dd re sse d FHAA iss ue s in 1 78 Opinions of the Attorney General 40 (1 99 3) (c ert ain fi resa fe ty requirements unrelate d to the specificneeds a nd abilities of a group home’s re sidents violate the FHAA) a nd 74 O p in io n s o f th eAttorney General 164 (1989) (siting requirements for group homes vio l at e the FHAA). C I VI L RI GHT S AND DI SC RI MI NA T I ON

) H OUS I NG

— A PPL I CA B I L I T Y OF F AI R H O U SI NG A MENDM ENTS A CT T O G ROU P H OM E N OTI CE A ND H E AR I NG R EQUI REMENTS

J ul y30, 1993

The H onor abl e N

el s on Sabat i ni Secr etar y of Heal th and MentalH

ygi ene Y ou h av e r eques t ed ouropi ni on r egar di ng t he ef fec tof the f e d e ra l F a ir H o u sin g A m e n d m e n ts A c t ( “ F H A A ” ) o n c e rta in a sp e c ts of the l icen sing pr oces s forgr oup hom es fort he ment al l yi l l or d e v e lo p m e n ta lly d is a b le d

. I n a n o p in io n iss u e d in 1 9 9 0 , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p u b lic not i ce a nd publ i c heari n g requi r ement s of Ti t l es 7 and 10 of the H eal t h- G ener al A r t i cl e, M ary l and C ode ( “H G ” A r t i cl e) , di d not v io late th e F H A A , a lth o u g h w e a d v ise d th a t h e a rin g s u n d e r H G T itl e 10 had t o be l i m i t ed i n var i ous w ay s t o avoi d p rob l ems undert he fede r al l aw
. 75 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 9 1 (19 9 0 ). 1
Y ouri nqui r yabout the cu rr entl egal i t yof the not i ce a nd hear i ng r equi r ement s i s pr om pt ed by a r ece nt deci s i on of the U ni t ed S t a t e s Di s t r i c t Co u r tf

o rt h e Di s t r i c to f

M a r y l a n d t h a ts t ru c k d o wn t he not i ce a nd hea r i ng r equi r ement s i n t he gr oup hom e r egul at i ons o f M o n tgo m ery C o u n ty. P ot om ac G r oup H om e C or

p. v. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 8 2 3 F . S u p p . 1 2 8 5 (1 9 9 3 ).
In ourvi ew , t he dec i s i on i n Pot omac Gro up H ome s i s a d e v e lo p m e n t in th e law th a t ca u se s u s to o v e rru le th e c o n c lu sio n s in o u r 1 9 9 0 o p in io n . T h e ra tio n a le o f th e f e d e ra l c o u rt c o m p e ls u s to concl ude thati f the D epart m ent cont i nued t o enfor ce the not i ce a ndG en. 48] 49
h e a rin g re q u ire m e n ts in H G T itl e s 7 a n d 1 0 , the D e p a rtm e n t w o u ld v io la te th e F H A A

.

I

N o ti ce a n d H ea rin g R eq u irem en ts
H G T i t l e 7, t he D evel opm ent al D i s abi l i t i es L aw , r equi r es t hat w hen an a ppl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of appr oval for a pr i vat e gr oup hom e i s fi l ed, “the Secr et arys hal l hol d a publ ic h ea ri ng on t he appl i cat i on. ” H G §7- 611( b)

. H G §7- 611 al s o cont ai ns t he fol l ow i ng p ro v isio n s f

o r p u b lic n o tice o f

th e h e a rin g : ( c ) ( 1 ) Th e Se c r e t a r ys h a l l p u b l i s h a not i ce of t he hear i ng w i t hi n 60 day s of r ece i pt o f th e c o m p le te d a p p lic a tio n
. (2 ) T h e n o tice sh a ll state : (i) T h e n a m e o f

th e a p p lica n t; (ii) T h e typ e o f a p p ro v a l th a t is so u g h t; ( i ii ) T he l ocat i on of the pr opos ed pr i vat e gr oup hom e; and ( i v) T he ti m e and pl ace t hatt he S e c re tar yse ts f

o r th e h e a rin g , w h ich sh a ll b e a tl e a s t7 b u tn o tm o r e t h a n 1 5 d a ys aft ert he l as tpubl i cat i on of the not i ce. (d) T he noti ce s hall be pub l i shed atl east t w i ce i n 1 w eek: ( 1) I n 2 new s paper s publ i s hed i n t he county w her e t he pri vat e group hom e i s t o be lo c a ted ; (2 ) If o n ly 1 n e w sp a p e r is p u b lish e d in that co u n ty , in tha t new sp ap er; or5 0 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

HG §10-520( a)( 2) also provide s for noticeto the gover ning body 2 for the county

and the municipality

and the General Assembly deleg ation from the district where theprivate group home is to be located.

(3 ) If a n e w sp a p e r is n o t p u b lish e d in t hatcounty , anynew s paperw i t h subst ant i al c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h a tc o u n t y. H G T i t l e 10, t he M ent al H y gi ene Law , co n t ai ns a s i m i l ar r equi r ement t hat “the Secr et ary
. . . hol d a publ i c i nfor m at i on hear i ng on [an] appl i cat i on” for t he l i cens ur e of a pr i vat e gr oup hom e. T he h e a rin g is to b e h e ld “ in th e c o u n tyw h e re th e p riv a te g ro u p h o m e is t o b e l o c a t e d a n d a s c l o s e a s p o s s i b l e t o t h e p r o p o s e d l o c a t i o n
. ” HG §10- 520( b) ( 2)

. T he r equi r ement s fornew s paperpubl i cat i on of a n o tice o f th e h e a rin g a re su b sta n tially sim ilar to th e re q u ire m e n ts in th e D e v e lo p m e n ta l D is a b iliti e s L a w
. See H G § 1 0 -52 0 (c). 2
I n 75 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 9 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , we addr es s ed the st atus of the hea r i ngs r equi r ed byH G T i t l es 7 and 10 u n d e r th e F H A A :

[W e c an n o t] co n clud e tha t th e m ere h o ld in g o f

a p u b lic h e a rin g n e c e ss a rily vi ol at es t he fe der al A ct

. A deci s i on on w h ethe r t o g ran t a li ce n se i s b est m ad e a fter a dec isi o n m ak er h as a s m u ch p erti n ent i nfo rm at i on as possi ble. A pu bli c heari ng i s a r eas onabl e means of acqui r i ng i nfor m at i on. W e kn ow of n o Fa i rH ou s i ng A c tcase sugg esti n g th a t h e a rin g s a re p e r se im p e rm is s ib le

. 75 O pinion of

the At t or ney G ener al291 at294. T he opi ni on t hen focus ed on the manneri n w hi ch hea r i ngs w er e hel d and conc l uded th a t, w h ile th e n a tu re o f th e h e a rin g s u n d e r H G T itl e 7 c o n f o rm e d to t h e F HAA, c e r t a i n mo d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e h e a r i n g p r o c e s s u n d e r HG T i t l e 10 w er e nec es s ary
. 75 O pi ni on of the A t t or ney G ener al304.G en. 48] 51
II
T he P otom ac G r oup Hom e C ase I n P o to m a c G ro u

p H o m e C o rp . v. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 82 3 F. Supp. 1285 ( 1993) , a pr ovi derof gr oup hom es for elde rl y per s ons w i t h di s abi l i ti es an d t w o r es i dent s of one of t he homes c hal l enged ce rt ain a sp ec ts of

the licen sing p roc ed u re ad o p ted b yM o n tgo m ery C ount yfor t hes e gr oup hom es
. U ndert he countyor di nance , gr oup h o m e p ro v id e rs m u st s e n d le tters to e a c h n e ig h b o rin g p ro p e rty ow ner of a pr opos ed gr oup hom e s i t e, bot h adj ace ntand oppos i t e, as w el l as t o n eighborhood c i vi c or gani zat i ons
. I n t hes e l et t er s , t he p ro v id e r is re q u ire d to n o tifyth e se in d iv id u a ls a n d g ro u p s o f its

“ p lan s to o p e ra te a g ro u p h o m e o n th e site ,” a s w e ll as c e rta in d e tails aboutt he type of person w ho w i l l l i ve ther e. 823 F. Supp at1289. A s t he cour t poi nt ed out , “no othercountyl aw orr egul at i on i m pos es a n ysim ilar r e q u ire m e n t o n a re sid e n c e to b e o c c u p ied b ya d u lt per s ons w ho do nothave di s abi l i t i es
. ” I d.
T he courtfound t hat s uch not i ces “have cons i s t ent l ypr ovoked neg a t i ve r e a c t i on s fr om ne i gh bo r s of t he pr op os e d g r ou p h omes. N ei ghbor s i n t he comm uni t i es t ypi cal l yr esponded w i t h an outpou ri ng of hos t i l i t yvent ed byw ayof a l et t erw r i t i ng campai gn oppos i ng t he pr opos ed gr oup hom e. ” 8 2 3 F

. Supp at1290. Such l et t er s t ypi cal l ys peak of a “l ow er i ng of pr oper t yval ues
. ” Id

. M ont gom eryC ount y ’ s pr ocedur e s a l s o cal l forappl i cat i ons for gr oup hom e l i cens i ng t o be r evi ew ed and eval uat ed bya “pr ogr am revi ew bo ard. ” U nli ke the process und er H G T i t l es 7 and 10 , t hese rev iew h ea ri n g s w ere n o t con d u cted ro u tine ly

. Instea d , theyw ere h e ld “ w h e n e v e r ne ig h b o rs o f a g ro u p h o m e a re p a rticu lar lyv o c a l in t hei roppos i t i on t o t he pr opos ed home. ” 823 F. Supp. at1291.
A l t ho u g h t h e c o u n t yi n s i s t e d t h a tt h e p r o g r a m r e v i e w bo a r ds w e r e l i mi t e d t o “ p r o g r a mma t i c c o n c e r n s , ” l i k e t h e wor t h o f t he se rv ice s o f

th e g r o u p h o m e p ro v id e r, re sid e n ts o f th e c o m m u n ity w h o appea r ed atr evi ew boar d hear i ngs cons i s t ent l ypr es ent ed s t at ement s o p p o sing the gr oup hom es
. T he s t at ement s i ncl uded “s t er eotypi cal vi ew s ” of t he peopl e w i t h di s abi l i t i es w ho w oul d l i ve in th e g ro u p h o m e s . 8 2 3 F . S u p p . a t 1 2 9 0

.5 2 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

Other issues in the case were not resolved by the court. Thus, an 3 ap p e a l is n o t ye t p o s s ib le

. T h e c o unty, w e ar e to ld , h a s n o t de cided wh e ther t o a

pp e a l in any e vent. I n g r ant i ng t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he fede r al c o u r th e l d t h a tb o t h t h e n o t i c e a n d h e a r i n g r e q u i r e me n t s of t h e c o u n t y ’ s p r o c e d u r e s v i o l a t e d t h e F HAA. 3
A
. N oti ce W i t h r es pectt o t he “ne i ghborno ti ficat i on r equi r ement , ” the f e d e r a l c o u r th e l d i tt o b e “ f a c i a l l y i n v a l i d , u n l e s s s u p p o r t e d b y a l egi t i m at e governm ent al i nt er es t , ” beca us e i t w as a r equi r ementnot i m pos ed on anyfami l yr esi d en t i al uni tot hert han thos e t o be o c c u p i e d b y p e o p l e wi t h d i s a b i l i t i e s
. 8 2 3 F. Su p p
. a t 1 2 9 6

. T he cour tconcl uded “thatno r at i onal bas i s orl egi t i m at e governm en ta l i nt er es ts uppor t s t he nei ghbornot i fi cat i on r equi r ement

. ” I d.
T h e c ou ntyassert ed thati tdid have a l egit i m at e i nter est u n d e r l y i n g t h e n o t i f

i c a t i o n r e q u i r e me n t : t o h e l p t he g r o u p h o me b e c o m e a p a rt o f

th e c o m m u n ity . B u t th e c o u rt re jec ted th is ju stif ica tio n , h o ld in g th a t “a p u rp o rte d ly b e n ig n p u rp o se o f a f a c ially di s cr i m inating or di nance i s i r r el evantt o a det erm i nat i on of the l aw ful nes s of the l egi s l at i on. ” I d. T he pr obl em w i t h t he not i fi cat i on, t he courtcont i nued, i s t hati tnece s s ar i l yas s um es “that peopl e w i t h di s abi l i t i es w er e di ffe ren tt han peopl e w i t hout di s abi l i t i es a n d m us tt ake s peci al s t eps t o ‘ become a partof the comm uni t y
. ’ T hi s r equi r ement i s equal l y as offe ns i ve as w oul d be a ru le t h a t a m in o rityf a m ilym u st g iv e n o tific a tio n a n d in v ite c o m m e n t b e f

o re m o v in g in to a p re d o m in a n tly w h ite n e ig h b o rh o o d .” 8 2 3 F . S u p p . a t 1 2 9 6

. Fur t herm or e, t he courthel d, t he ef fec tof s end ing o utt he not i fi cat i on i s not t o hel p i nt egr at e t he group home r es i dent s i nt o t he c o m m u n ity

. R a th e r, “ n o tice s o f th is s o rt g a lv a n ize n e ig h b o rs in th e ir oppos i t i on t o t he homes. ” Id

. R el y i ng on evi dence i n t he r ecor d of t he ca s e, t he cour t found t hat “the nei ghbornot i fi cat i on pr oces s has caus ed a gr eat deal of har m t o t he pl ai nt i ffs , pr ovoki ng pet i t i ons and l et t er w ri t i ng cam paigns i n op po si t i on t o the propo sed grou p h om es. T he r es ul t i ng s t i gm a t o [the] pl ai nt i ffs

. . . and ot herr es i dent s of [the] gr oup hom es i s noteas i l yer as ed. ” 823 F. Supp. at1296.G en. 48] 53
B . Hear ings W i t h r es pectt o hear i ngs befor e the progr am re vi ew boar ds , t he fede r al cour thel d t hatt he r equi r ementdi d notvi ol at e the FH A A on i t s f a c e
. Id

. Butt h e c o u r tt h e n wen to n t o e x p l a i n whyt he r equi r ementhad a di s cr i m i nat ory ef fectand ther efor e vi ol at ed the F H A A a s a p p lied . F irst, th e h e a rin g s h a v e a stig m a tizin g e f f e c t:
L ike t he nei ghbornot i fi cat i on rul e, pr ogr am r evi ew boar d hear i ngs ar e hel d undert he chal l enged r equi r ementonl yforr es ident i al fac i l i t i es fort he di s abl ed. N o o t hert ype of re sid e n tial h o m e in M o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyis s u b je c t to p u b lic s c ru tin yo f th is s o rt

. 8 2 3 F . S u p p . a t 1 2 9 7

. Second, t he s t i gm at i zi ng eff ect i s compounded by “[t ] he comm uni t yconce r ns and comm uni t y pr ej udi ces [that ] oft en dom i nat e thes e hea r i ngs
. . . . ” 823 F. Supp. at1297. A l tho u gh t he cour tacknow l edged thatt he M ont gom eryC ount yoffi ci al s w ho admi ni s t ert he pr ogr am “t hemsel ves m aynotharborpr ej udi ces of t hi s s or taga ins tt he handi cappe d el der l y , t heyhave de s i gned and ut i l i zed a r egul at or ypr ocedur e w hi ch fa ci l i t at es t he expr es s i on of t h ese pr ej udi ces and w hi ch gi ves w ei ghtt o s uch vi ew s i n t he pr oces s
. ” I

d. T hi s di s cr i m i nat or yeff ectw as aggr avat ed byt he w ay i n w hi ch M ont gom eryC ount yhel d t hes e hea r i ngs
. T he ne ig h b orhoo d o rgani zat i on s them sel ves are r epresent ed b yatl east one boar d m ember , w hos e c o m m ent s caus e the boar d t o s t r ay bey ond l egi t i m at e pr ogr amm at i c i s s ues
. I n t hi s w ay , t he hea r i ngs gi ve “undue w ei ghtt o t he opi ni o n s o f t he nei ghbor s
. . . . ” I d. F u rth e rm o re , “w h a t m a k e s th e d isc rim in a to rye f f e c t p a rtic u la rly egregi ou s in this case i s that heari ng s ar e con si st entl yheld becau se of pub li c oppos i t i on t o t he gr oup hom es and fort he purpos e of appea s i ng nei ghbor i ng r es i dent s
. T hi s par t i cul arpr ocedur al s t ep, w h i c h i s b a s e d e s s e n t i a l l y o n i l l e g a l p r e j u d i c e s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y, cau ses gr eatharm t o pl ai nt i ffs beca us e of r es ul t i ng del ay s and b u rd e n s o m e c o s ts .” 8 2 3 F . S u p p a t 1 2 9 8

. I n cons i der i ng w hetherM ont gom ery C ount yhad any legiti m ate interest in co n ti n u ing it s h ea ri n g req u ir em en t, the c o u rt hel d t hat t he hear i ng pr oces s w as nei t hera nec es s arynoran ef fec t i ve5 4 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

w a yo f g a th e rin g le g iti m a te in f o rm a tio n a b o u t p ro g ra m m a tic c o n c e rn s: T h e re c o rd in th is ca se re v e a ls th a t d e f e n d a n ts can, and freq uen t l ydo , revi ew providers ’ pr og ram s t at ement s w i t houteven hol di ng a publ i c boar d hear i ng
. . . . M or eover , evi dence of r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatnei g h b o r hood r epr es ent at i ves as a gr oup have no pa r t i cul ar exp ert i se con c erni ng program m at i c i ssues, s uch as t he type o f ca r e w hi ch s houl d be p rov ided an d the a p p ro p riate staf fin g fo r a parti cul argr oup hom e. R athert han as s i s t i ng d e f e n d a n ts in a ss e ss in g th e p ro g ra m m a tic a sp e c t s of a provider’s sta tem e n t, nei ghbor hood r epr es ent at i ves m os toft en di r ectt he att ent i on of l i cens i ng offi ci al s aw ay f ro m leg iti m a te c o n c e rn s. A s s u c h , itis a p p a re n t to th e C o u rt th a t a n yleg iti m a te r egul at or yi nt er es tof def endant s i n r evi ew i ng a pr ovider’s pr ogr am byw ayof hol di ng a p u b lic h e a ri n g o f

th is s o rt is m in im a l.
8 2 3 F . S u p p . at 1 2 9 8 . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d a s f o llo w s: [ T ]h e b o a rd h e a rin g re q u ire m e n t, a s ap p lied in t hi s cas e, i s perhaps t he m ostd iscrim inato ry m etho d av ail a b le fo r rev iew ing a p rov ider’s pr ogr am st at ement

. As di s cus s ed h e r e i n a b o v e , d e f

e n d a n t s o f

t e n r e v i e w a p ro v id e r’s sta tem e n t w ith o u t h o ld in g a p u b lic hear i ng. Fur t her m or e, nei ghbor s as a gr oup have no pa r t i cul arexpert i s e w hi ch mi ghtbe u se f u l in a ss istin g lice n sin g o f f icia ls in th e ir r evi ew of the s t at ement s of pr os pect i ve gr oup hom e pr ovi der s
. T o t h e ext entt hatt he h e a rin g s a d d re ss leg iti m a te p ro g ra m m a tic m atters, t h ere are less d iscri m inato ry alt er n a ti v es a v ail ab le t o sati sfythe C o u n ty ’s l egi t i m at e conc erns
. . . . I f the def endant s need in f o rm a tio n f

ro m a p ro v id e r re g a rd in g itsG en. 48] 55
pr o g ram s t at ement , “ther e ar e l es s for m al m eans t o obt ai n i t

. ”
8 2 3 F . S u p p a t 1 2 9 9 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l, c ita tio n o m itte d ).

III
I m pl i cat i ons f

or St at e Procedures
T he M o n t g o me ryCou n typ r o c e d u r e s h e l d unl aw ful i n P ot om ac Gr o u p Ho me and the St at e pr ocedur es i n H G T i t l es 7 and 10 ar e not i dent i cal

. U nderSt at e pr ocedur es , not i ce i s gi ven bygener al pub li cat i on, notfocus ed on the nei ghbor s of the pr opos ed gr oup h o m e . P u b lic h e a rin g s a re ro u tin e , n o t trigg e re d b yc o m m u n ity oppos i t i on. N o comm uni t yr epr es ent at i ve part i cipat es i n t he d e c isio n -m a k in g p ro c e ss . D e sp ite th e s e d if f e re n c e s, w e th in k it hi ghl yl i kel yt hatt he fe der al cour tw oul d r eac h t he s ame concl us i ons aboutt he S tat e not i ce a nd hear i ng r equi r ement s as i tdi d aboutt he c o u n ty’s

. A
. N oti ce B eca us e t he not i ce r equi r ement s ar e not appl i ed to group re sid e n c e s o th e r th a n th o se to b e o c c u p ied b y p e rs o n s w ith di s abi l i t i es , t he fe der al cour t w oul d l i kel y concl ude thatt he ef fec tof th e n o tice re q u ire m e n ts is to stig m a tize th e g ro u p h o m e re sid e n ts becau se of t heirdis abil i t i es. M oreove r, a lth o u gh a t ri al y i el ds a fac tual r e c o r d and pr epar at i on of an A t t or neyG ener al ’ s opi ni on does not , w e have r eas on t o t hi nk t hatnot i ce t o t he publ i c and t o el ect ed offi ci al s aboutappl i ca n t s fora St at e l i cens e, l i ke not i ce a bout appl i cant s fora countyl i ce n se, oft en has had the ef fec tof gal vani zi ng nei ghbor hood oppos i t i on t o a gr oup hom e. A pl ai nt i ff in a f e d e ra l c o u rt a c tio n a g a in st th e D e p a rtm e n t w o u ld a lm o st s u re ly p re se n t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e o f th e w a y s in w h ich p e o p le w ith di s abi l i t i es ar e harm ed byt he not i ce r equi r ement i n H G §§7- 611 and 10- 520.
W e d iscern n o arg u m en t tha t w o u ld p ersu ad e the fe d era l cou rt t o r eac h a di ffe r entr es ul tt han i n P o t o ma c Gr o u p Ho me . T he not i ce r equi r ement s i n H G §§7- 611 and 10- 520 w oul d be hel d t o vi ol at e the F HAA.5 6 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

I f publ ic not ice cannot be g iven because of the FHAA, an attempt 4 to defend the hea

ringrequ i rement would seem pointless, however. An unannounce d “public” he aringserve s no purpose. B . Hear ings B ecause the fact s abou tM on t go m e ryCounty ’ s heari ng process w er e s o “egr egi ous , ” as t he courtputi t , w e w oul d have mor e r oom to d e f e n d th e h e a rin g p ro c e d u re s in H G § § 7 -6 1 1 a n d 1 0 -5 2 0

. S til l, 4 a pl ai nt i ff w oul d s ur el ybe abl e t o s how t hatopp onent s of gr oup hom es at t empt t o us e the hea r i ngs t o voi ce s t er eotypi cal vi ew s of p e o p le w ith d isa b ili ties , ev e n th o u g h th e D e p a rtm e n t rig o ro u sly e x c lu d e s ille g itim a te c o n c e rn s f ro m its o w n d e c is io n -m a k in g
. See S tew a rt B

. McK inn ey Fo u n d

. , Inc

. v. T o w n P lan & Zo n ingC o m m ’n , 7 9 0 F

. S u p p . 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 1 1 -1 2 (D . C o n n . 1 9 9 2 ) (u se o f “ p u b lic inf o rm ati o n fo rum ” a s instrum en t of n eigh b o rho o d o p p o sit ion ).
O n e k eyp assa g e in th e f ed era l cou rtd ec isi o n , m o reo v er, quot ed on page 51 abo v e, focus es on t he ava i l abi l i t yof al t ernat i ve w ay s of ga t heri ng necessaryi nfo rm at i on
. T he D epart m ent has l ess f o rm a l m e a n s th a n a p u b lic h e a rin g to o b tain th e in f o rm a tio n th a t it d e e m s n e c e ss a ryb e f

o re a p p r o v in g a n a p p lica tio n , an d n o th in g in P o t o ma c Gr o u

p Ho me pr ecl udes a t h o r ough i nves t i gat i on of the abi l i t yof the appl i cantt o pr ovi de pr oper car e. 823 F. Supp. at1299. I f, as w e t hi nk l i kel y , t he D epart m ent w oul d be unabl e t o s how t hat t he hea r i ng pr ocess i t s el f y i el ded mat er i al i nfor m at i on b o th p e r mi t t e d t o b e c o n s i d e r e d b yt h e F HAA and unavai l abl e b y any ot herm eans , t hen t he re s ul t w oul d be the s ame as i n P ot om ac G r oup Ho me : A hear i ng r equi r ed of pe opl e w i t h di s abi l i t i es , butnotof peo pl e w i t ho utdi s a bi l i t i e s i n c ompa r a bl e r e s i de nt i a l s e t t i ng s, v io la te s th e F H A A

.

IV
C oncl usi on J udge H arvey ’ s deci s i on i n P o t o ma c Gr o u p Ho me i s notan i s ol a t e d v i e w o f t h e FHA A th a t we c o u l d e x p e c t t o b e r e ver s ed on appea l ( i f one i s t aken)

. R ather , t he dec i s i on r efl ect s aG en. 48] 57

See, e.g., Marbrunak, Inc. v . City of Stow , 974 F.2d 43 ( 6th Cir. 5 19 93 ) (f iresa fe ty re quire me nts ); Oxford House, Inc . v. Town of Babylon , 81 9 F . Su pp . 1 17 9 ( E. D. N. Y. 19 93 ) (a pp lic atio n of “ fa

mily”re stric tio n in zon ingc od e ); Horizon House Deve lop. Serv., Inc. v. Townshi p of Upper Southampton , 804 F. Supp. 683 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (spac ing require ment); Stewart B. McKinney Found., I nc. v. Town Plan &Zoning Comm’n , 790 F . Supp . 119 7 (D . Co nn . 1 99 2) (spe c ial e xcepti on proc e dure ); Association of Relatives & Friends v. Re gulations &Permits Admin. , 740 F. Supp. 95 (D.P.R. 1990) (denial of special use permit). p a ttern o f d e c isio n s in th e f e d e ra l c o u rts strik in g d o w n re q u ire m e n ts th a t, on th e ir f

a c e o r in p ra c tica l ef

f e c t, m a k e it h a rd e r f

o r p e o p le w i t h di s abi l i t i es t o l i ve w her e theyw antt o. 5
I n ouropi ni on, cont i nued enf or cementof the not i ce a nd hear i ng r equi r ement s i n H G T i t l es 7 and 10 w oul d l i kel yr es ul ti n a fede r al cour t deci s i on hol di ng t hes e r equi r ement s vi ol at i ve of the FH A A

. W e r ecomm end t hat t he m at t er be br oughtt o t he att ent i on o f th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b lya t th e n e x t se ss io n a n d , u n til th e sta tu te is am en d ed , that ap p li ca ti o n s b e c o n side red an d ap p rov ed , if t h eyare i n compl i ance w i t h r egul at or y r equi r ement s , w i t houtpubl i cat i on or p ro v is io n o f

n o tic e a n d w ith o u t p u b lic h e a ri n g s
.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce E dito r’s N

o te : T he P o t o ma c Gr o u

p Ho me deci s i on w as notappea l ed.