Opinion ID: 731244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disparate Application of the Zoning Ordinances

Text: 105 Second, the district court found that the city's disparate application of its zoning ordinances was evidence of intentional discrimination. Taylor II, 872 F.Supp. at 433-35. It is well-settled that discriminatory enforcement of otherwise neutral zoning practices may be evidence of illegal discrimination. Smith & Lee, 13 F.3d at 927.
106 The first form of discriminatory enforcement identified by the district court is that the city treated home businesses in single family zones differently than it treated Mortenview. Again, I agree that this is not evidence of discrimination. The city's zoning ordinance specifically allows some home businesses in single-family zones if they are incidental to the property's primary use as a residence. Taylor Zoning Ordinances § 2.02(42). Mortenview does not fit within the city's definition of home business, however; its primary existence is as a business, and the business is not incidental to the property's use as a residence. Thus, Mortenview is not truly comparable to the home businesses in Taylor, and the city did not discriminate by treating it differently. See Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir.1992).
107 The second form of discriminatory enforcement identified by the district court is the city's disparate treatment of disabled and non-disabled groups of more than six residents who wish to live together in a non-profit setting. Taylor II, 872 F.Supp. at 434-35. Because the majority opinion does not discuss this issue, some background is helpful. 108 Mortenview is located in a single-family zone. The city of Taylor defines a family as follows: 109 a. A family is defined as: an individual or group of two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, together with foster children and servants of the principal occupants, with not more than one (1) additional unrelated person who are domiciled together as a single, domestic, housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, or 110 b. A collective member [sic] of individuals domiciled together in one (1) dwelling unit whose relationship is of a continuing nontransient domestic character and who are cooking and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. 111 Taylor Zoning Ordinance § 2.02(36) (emphasis added). Thus, while there is no limit on the number of people who can live together in a nonprofit setting, for-profit uses are prohibited entirely in the single family zone. 112 However, Michigan law provides that all AFC facilities with six or fewer residents are considered residential uses and permitted in all residential zones, notwithstanding any local ordinance to the contrary: 113 In order to implement the policy of this state that persons in need of community residential care shall not be excluded by zoning from the benefits of normal residential surroundings, a state licensed residential facility providing supervision or care, or both, to 6 or less persons shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of zoning and a permitted use in all residential zones, including those zoned for single family dwellings, and shall not be subject to a special use or conditional use permit or procedure different from those required for other dwellings of similar density in the same zone. 114 M.C.L. § 125.583b(2). Thus, the combined effect of the city ordinance and the state statute is to limit for-profit AFC facilities in single family zones to no more than six residents, but to place no limit on the number of residents in nonprofit AFC facilities in single family zones. 115 In accordance with this statutory scheme, the city argued at the first trial that it denied the petition to expand Mortenview beyond six residents because Smith & Lee was a for-profit entity. Joint Appendix at 901-02, 910-11. On the first appeal, we specifically noted that if Mortenview were a non-profit facility, the city would have allowed it to expand. Smith & Lee, 13 F.3d at 931. 116 However, at the second trial and on this appeal, the city maintained that it would not allow an AFC with more than six residents in a single-family district even if it were nonprofit, claiming that such a use would create density problems. Taylor II, 872 F.Supp. at 434 (emphasis added); Joint Appendix at 1600-01, 1616-17; Brief for Appellants at 12. This violates the city's own zoning ordinances, which do not put any limit on the number of people who may live together in a non-profit setting. See Taylor Zoning Ordinances § 2.02(36). In contrast, the city did not declare that it would not allow more than six non-disabled residents to live in a non-profit housekeeping unit in a single-family zone. See Taylor II, 872 F.Supp. at 434. In other words, the city explicitly stated that it would treat the disabled differently than those who were not disabled in violation of its own ordinances. This discriminatory enforcement is strong evidence of a discriminatory animus, and standing alone is sufficient to support the district court's finding of intentional discrimination. In addition, it entirely undercuts the non-discriminatory rationale for the city's decision, i.e., that the city was simply following its ordinances, which distinguish between profit and non-profit living arrangements. 117 Furthermore, the very fact that the city changed its rationale is evidence of discrimination. As we have specifically held in the employment discrimination context, a change in the reasons offered for a decision supports a finding that the reasons offered are pretexts for discrimination. Schwartz v. Gregori, 45 F.3d 1017, 1021 (6th Cir.1995). Here, the city's change in the rationale for its rejection of the petition to rezone is evidence of intentional discrimination. 118 Moreover, the density argument given by the city fails to withstand close inspection. The city would not prevent any number of people from living together as a non-profit unit in a single-family area if they did not live in an AFC facility. Taylor Zoning Ordinances § 2.02(36). Yet a large number of people living together would have the same impact on density regardless of whether they lived in an AFC facility. The fact that the city is concerned only with the density of AFC facilities is further evidence of discrimination. 119 In summary, the city has admitted that it would violate its own ordinances to exclude an AFC facility. This is clear evidence of discrimination, and supports the district court's finding of intentional discrimination.