Opinion ID: 1026596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Zoning Amendment

Text: The Smith Plaintiffs alleged an FHA violation based on a 2006 zoning amendment under which they lost the ability to convert their existing single-family home into a multi-family dwelling. To prove a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA, the Smith Plaintiffs had to demonstrate that the housing action or practice being challenged was either motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a discriminatory impact. Betsey v. Turtle Creek Assocs., 736 F.2d 983, 986 (4th Cir. 1984). We conclude the district court properly rejected this claim because of the absence of any evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.5 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We also grant the County’s motion to strike matters outside the record on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 5 Cases cited by Greengael involving state law challenges to exclusionary zoning ordinances are inapplicable. See, e.g., Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mt. Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975) (developing municipalities required under state constitutional mandate to meet reasonable housing needs of low and moderate income people in their region). - 8 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 9 -