Chronology

A.Chronology

CHRONOLOGY

May 5, 2014   After review of the City’s zoning codes pertaining to the definition of single household occupancy, Jim Joy purchases 60 Depot Street from James and Ethel Dion, who had resided in the home since 1965, raising a large family in a single-family dwelling. The home is 3,600 square feet, with two bathrooms and six bedrooms.  The home sits on a corner lot, facing woods and the rail trail.  The neighbors to the right and rear are single family.  The neighbors to the left across the street are multi-family.

July 2014   Driven by Circumstances opens as a sober group home for men disabled by addiction or alcoholism.  A live-in House Manager and Jim Joy, as Director, help residents maintain recovery by offering peer recovery support, random drug testing, and the structure of curfews, chores, AA/NA meeting attendance, household meetings, and the example of cooperative living.  Residents range in age from 19 to 67.  Through word-of-mouth they are referred to DBC by places such as Webster Place, Farnum Center in Manchester, Hampstead Hospital, Plymouth House, Riverbank House, and Phoenix House.  All residents (unless retired) are expected to find employment.  Their occupations include student, retired corrections officer, master carpenters, software engineer, roofer, chefs, antique book dealer, Spaulding Youth Center employees, Webster Place employees, landscapers, retail workers, retired baker, mechanical engineer, a restaurant owner, and auto detailers.  Many are fathers.  A few own their own homes.  The number of residents (including a House Manager and the Director) fluctuates between four and ten, never exceeding the Dion family occupancy.  The length of time residents spend at DBC varies.  Two residents have been at DCB since February and plan to remain indefinitely.  One is in the process of opening his own restaurant in Tilton.  The majority of residents spend 4 to 6 months at DBC and move to more independent living or return to their original families when they feel ready.

March 2015  Jim Joy changes permanent residency from Meredith, NH to 60 Depot Street.

September 2015  The mother of a resident calls the City Welfare office to confirm that Driven by Circumstances exists; because her son has a long history of addiction and dishonesty the mother fact-checks every claim he makes.  A woman from the City Welfare office then called DBC because it was not listed as a licensed facility with the State.  We explained that we were a home rather than a facility and that the peer support and structure we offer does not require licensing by the State (nor do we receive any funding from the State) because we are not a clinical treatment program.  The State of New Hampshire has no regulatory requirements for sober group homes.

September 21, 2015    Mr. Lewis and Captain Bodien request a site visit.  At that time Jim Joy, the Director, explains the concept of sober group living and residents’ protected status under the ADA.

October 1, 2015  Mr. Lewis and Captain Bodien return and deliver a Cease and Desist Order B.1.October1, classifying our use of 60 Depot Street as a rooming house, a prohibited use.  (Item B. 1. of the supporting documents) with a 30 day deadline.  The Director again mentions protected status and the ADA.  Captain Bodien said he had heard of it.  He then said DBC’s zoning issue might be an issue of vocabularly.

October 8, 2015  DBC requests a reconsideration of the rooming house classification and a withdrawal of the Cease and Desist B.2.October8.  This correspondence attempts to outline the concepts behind sober group living as an aid in disability management. (Item B. 2. of the supporting documents.)  We receive no response from the City.

October 28, 2015  Jim Joy calls the Planning Office two days before the Cease and Desist deadline.  Mr. Lewis returns the call saying that the City was reviewing the October 8 letter from an administrative and legal perspective.  In a subsequent conversation Mr. Lewis said the City was withdrawing the Cease and Desist and that at some point the City would be in touch.

November 30, 2015  After review by the Planning Office, the Building Inspector, and the City Counsel, the City stands by the rooming house classification.  (Item B. 3 of the supporting documents.) B.3.November30

December 23, 2015  DBC acknowledges the November 30 administrative determination and begins the process of appeal Appeal grounds.  We ask that the Cease and Desist and any action on life or safety codes be held in abeyance until our appeal is heard.  Additionally, we request an administrative interpretation of the de-classification of 60 Depot Street as a single-family dwelling and an outline of the specific factors weighed in the City’s reconsideration of the rooming house classification. (Item B. 4 of the supporting documents.) B.4.December23

December 24, 2015  We request procedural direction from the Planning Office regarding the mechanism appropriate to making a request for reasonable accommodation based on disability.B.5.December24

December 28, 2015  We submit the Application for Appeal to the Planning Office.

City Won’t Reconsider

B.3.November30

CITY OF FRANKLIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE

‘”The Three Rivers City”

Planning and Zoning Department Tel: (603) 934-2341 316 Central Street          Fax: (603) 934-7413

Franklin New Hampshire 03235                                              dlewis@franklinnh.ora

November 30, 2015

Jim Joy

60 Depot Street

Franklin, NH 03235

Re: Response to Letter of 10/8/15 regarding Cease and Desist Issued by City on 10/1/15 60 Depot Street; tax map/lot 099-050-00

Dear Mr. Joy,

Thank you for the thorough response provided in your letter dated 10/8/15 [received on 10/14/15]. The letter has been reviewed by this office, the office of the Building Inspector, and the City’s Legal Counsel. While you raise some interesting points in your letter, the City still believes that its position and determinations outlined in our 10/1/15 letter remain valid and applicable. A few specific items highlight that position.

  1. The determination that this use, in relationship to the structure, is properly defined as a “rooming house” remains appropriate. You have not presented any information that either Building Inspector Bodien or I have misinterpreted or misapplied that use classification.
  2. It is our opinion that we have not singled out your use in any type of discriminatory fashion. The zoning ordinance is quite clear that rooming houses are not an allowed use, and they can only be approved through the issuance of a variance from the Franklin Zoning Board of Adjustment. Similarly, the life safety codes that would apply to your use and structure would also be applied to any rooming house type of use anywhere in the City.
  3. The determinations and findings in our 10/1/15 letter does not bar, contrary to your line-ofthinking it the bullet item at the top of page 5 of your letter, residency by persons engaged in recovery. The Cease and Desist Order was issued based on the determination that the structure is being used so that is meets the rooming house definition, thus there are violations of both zoning provisions and life safety codes.

I want to again inform you that the zoning issues relative to the rooming house determination can be brought, if you so choose, to the ZBA for an application for a variance and zoning relief. Regarding Life Safety codes, any discussion on the topic of appeals or variations from the applicable codes will need to be discussed with Captain Chuck Bodien, the Building Inspector.

If you wish to set-up another meeting to discuss any issues or proposed schedules for a variance application to the ZBA, please contact me as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Richard Lewis

Director of Planning and Zoning

Sent Via Email

cc:                    Mayor Ken Merrifield

Elizabeth Dragon, City Manager

Kevin LaChapelle, Fire Chief

Captain Chuck Bodien, Building Inspector

Paul Fitzgerald, City Attorney

DBC Response to Eviction

B.2.October8

October 8, 2015

 

Cease and Desist Order; 60 Depot Street; tax map/lot 099-050-00

Dear Mr. Lewis,

We greatly appreciate that you took the time to “review the issues in greater detail” between your initial site inspection of September 21st and the issuing of the “Cease and Desist Order” of October 1; however, it seems likely that the depth and complexity of relevant issues pertaining to the civil liberties of the residents of 60 Depot Street perhaps constituted a burdensome examination for the City within such a short time frame, and we would very much appreciate the opportunity to work with the City toward a joint understanding of the applicable Federal statutes pertaining to our residency.

Specifically, we ask that the City and Driven By Circumstances delve deeper into an assessment of residents’ protected status afforded by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, including Title II and Title III protections (ADA Amendments Act of 2008), the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as well as the 14th Amendment right to equal protection and due process.

Both the ADA and FHAA recognize alcoholics and addicts in recovery as qualifying for disability status and protection under Federal law. [Please see 28 CFR § 35.104 (4)(1)(ii); 28 CFR § 35.131(a)(2); 42 USC § 3602; 42 USC § 3604; Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio 431 U.S. 494 (1977).]

Federal protections have established and affirmed that stable, recovery-supportive, cooperative, sober group housing can be as essential to persons disabled by alcoholism and addiction as wheelchairs are essential to paraplegics.

Driven By Circumstances provides such residential supports to individuals facing the handicap

of addiction. [Please see United States v. City of Audubon, 797 F.Supp. 353, 358 – 359 (D.N.J. 1991); Corp. of the Episcopal Church in Utah v. West Valley City, 119 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217-18 (D.Utah 2000); Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 819 F.Supp. 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1993); Jeffrey O. Et Al., Plaintiffs, Vs. City Of Boca Raton, United States District Court Southern District Of Florida Case No. 03-80178-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON.]

Federal courts have established and affirmed that such sober residences – structured as supports for individuals disabled by alcoholism or addiction — constitute a “single housekeeping unit” appropriate to both dwellings deemed “single-family” and neighborhoods deemed “residential.”  [Please see City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 313 N.E.2d, 756, 758 (1974).]

The City of Franklin itself classifies a family as “One or more persons occupying the premises and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit.” [Please see Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (D.N.J. 1991).]

Indeed, the entire purpose of structured living at DBC is to operate as a single housekeeping unit to ameliorate the loneliness, isolation, and boredom that so often derail a recovering addict’s abstinence (a concept supported by Federal case law). [Please again see Jeffrey O. Et Al., Plaintiffs, Vs. City Of Boca Raton,; Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon.]

Certain arguments have been raised (and negated) in the Federal courts that the cooperative, communal nature of sober living group homes may threaten the fundamental nature of single-family zoning.  The existence of DBC at 60 Depot Street actually enhances the fundamental nature of its particular neighborhood.

  • The residents at 60 Depot Street number fewer than the previous occupants, who, while constituting a more “traditional” model of “family,” housed multiple adults and seven children.
  • The residents at 60 Depot Street are quiet, conscientious, and respectful of neighbors, even when such considerations are not reciprocated.
  • The residents at 60 Depot Street have not required nor attracted any attention from law enforcement or paramedics.
  • All vehicles at 60 Depot Street are registered, inspected and running, which elevates the neighborhood standard.
  • The property is well maintained, which also elevates the neighborhood standard.
  • By virtue of the home’s purpose, no resident engages in illegal drug use, alcohol use, or illegal activity, another advantage to the neighborhood.
  • Residents regularly sweep the street, help neighbors with lawn mowing and trash, collect debris from along the Rail Trail.
  • Residents value, maintain, and thrive upon the quiet, low-profile, peaceable atmosphere of the home.

In short, the residents at 60 Depot Street create no nuisance or threat to our immediate neighborhood or to the City of Franklin.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act establishes that persons with qualifying disabilities under the ADA have the same basic rights to enjoying housing as other citizens, and the Olmstead Act affirms that such housing should be in the least segregated settings possible. [Please see 42 USC § 3604; Samaritan Inns v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3rd 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999).]

Respectfully, the residents of 60 Depot Street request that you rescind the City’s “Cease and Desist Order” of October 1, 2015, in order to allow ample time for deeper examination, conversation, and development of cooperative understanding between the City of Franklin and the residents of 60 Depot Street..  Additionally, we ask that you reconsider your classification of our home as a “rooming house.”

Stigma, shame, and discrimination come in forms both subtle and unintended, and Federal statutes and case law are clear that effect, rather than motive, defines discrimination. [Please see United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri,508 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir 1974):Id. at 1185 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. den. 422 U.S. 1042 (1975).]

The residents of 60 Depot Street do not represent “certain” members of our community (as they are deemed in the City’s letter of October 1); they represent members of our community.  [Please see 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(8).]

In issuing its “Cease and Desist Order” with 30 day timeframe, the City’s action could perhaps be misconstrued as insensitive to the absolute necessity of stable, family-style living so imperative as a functional disability aid to  alcoholics and addicts in recovery who have sought such support, based on the nature of their disability.  [Please see Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1500 (10th Cir. 1995); and again, United States v. City of Audubon; Corp. of the Episcopal Church in Utah v. West Valley City; Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon;  Jeffrey O. Et Al., Plaintiffs, Vs. City Of Boca Raton.]  We welcome the opportunity to engage in fruitful discussion with the City about any potential misunderstanding about the importance of such stable housing.

In classifying 60 Depot Street as a “rooming house,” the City’s determination could perhaps be misconstrued as stereotyping alcoholics and addicts as capable of, or deserving of, nothing more than mere occupancy, relegating them to the isolation of single rooms without the practical advantages and warmth associated with traditional home life, such as is enjoyed at DBC.  [Please see HR Rep. No 100-711 100th Cong. 2d Sess at 24; Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, 808 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.N.Y. 1992); Potomac Group Home v. Montgomery County, MD, 823 F.Supp. 1285 (D.Md. 1993).]  We welcome the opportunity to enter into conversation about the erroneous nature of such conclusion and the “rooming house” classification.

And it is with deep concern that we receive your directive to contact your office “as soon as the number of residents is below the allowed 3 unrelated persons” (emphasis added). We are optimistic that joint discussion and an examination of Federal case law will lead to an exemption of the City’s “unrelated persons” limit.  [Please see again Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford; Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc; Jeffrey O. Et Al., Plaintiffs, Vs. City of Boca Raton.]  But in the meantime we are saddened to be held to an occupancy limit below the standard alleged for persons without disability. [Please see 42 USC § 3604.]

This official directive to achieve an occupancy standard below what is allowed non-disabled members of the community is acutely troubling in conjunction with the following:

  • The seeming lack of any official review of FHAA and ADA protections between the site inspection on September 21 and the Cease and Desist Order on October 1, despite City officials having read DBC material specific to the nature of residents’ disability and having been verbally alerted to our protected status under Federal law.
  • The seemingly casual willingness to displace a vulnerable population dependent upon stable housing as an aid in their disability, the lack of concern for the effect of such disruption upon residents’ sustained recovery from a chronic and life threatening disease, and the willingness to do so within such a short time frame without any mention of the City’s potential responsibilities under the Olmstead Act.
  • The potentially demeaning and inappropriate classification of a home as a “rooming house.” In the absence of any explicit City recognition of our residents’ disability and their Federal rights to non-discriminatory treatment, this classification could be misconstrued as resulting from negative stereotype of persons battling addiction. [Please see 42 USC § 3604; HR Rep. No. 100-711 100th, 2s Sess at 182.]
  • The implications and humiliations of a “Cease and Desist” order upon a protected class (in this case, akin to demanding the cease and desist of wheelchair use). [Please see HR Rep. No. 100-711 100th, 2s Sess at 23-24; 42 USC § 3617.]
  • The very narrow, official option of “you could file an appeal for a variance” without an accompanying outline for other options such as a “reasonable accommodation” application regarding occupancy limits. [Please see 42 USC § 3604(f)(3)(b); Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown Township, F. Supp. , 1998 WL 129956 (D.N.J. 1998); again, Jeffrey O. Et Al., Plaintiffs, Vs. City Of Boca Raton.]
  • The discouraging and intimidating caveat “…. but if you were successful….” (in applying for a variance)(emphasis added). [Please see 42 USC § 3617; Oxford House, Inc. v. Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.J. 1992); Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. City of Naperville, 923 F.Supp. 1057, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1996).]
  • The City’s concern for the WHERE (site) rather than the WHO (individuals with disability) when issuing both the “rooming house” classification and the “Cease and Desist” order.
  • And the City’s seemingly circular suggestion that sober group living for alcoholics and addicts in recovery constitutes a rooming house, but rooming houses are not allowed in Franklin, therefore addicts and alcoholics in recovery who seek to maintain that recovery by living in a sober support home are effectively barred from residency in Franklin.

The aggravate effect potentially hints at a prejudicial tone in the City’s communications and conclusions concerning the residents of 60 Depot Street. [Please see Stewart B. McKinney Found, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Com’n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1216-19 (D. Conn. 1992); Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow, Ohio, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992).]

To the extent that DBC might have contributed to any prejudicial tone, please be re-assured that our interests are entirely cooperative.

We have little desire to set a legal precedent for sober group homes in New Hampshire or to attract public attention within or beyond the City of Franklin.

Additionally, research specific to the drafting of this letter has been costly, and we would very much like to avoid further expense for DBC in advocating for recognition of and action upon our civil rights under Federal law; likewise, we do not wish to provoke unnecessary expense for the City.

It is in this spirit of cooperation, and in recognition that Franklin might lack precedent for a sober group home and therefore lack a full understanding of the Federal protections that apply to sober group homes for individuals in recovery from and disabled by alcoholism and drug addiction that we welcome further conversation, as well as formally request a reconsideration of the “rooming house” classification and a withdrawal of the October 1 “Cease and Desist Order.”

An elementary clarification of our position regarding Federal protections under the ADA, FHAA, and the 14th Amendment might be aided by the following resources:

  • The John Marshall Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 2 Article 4 Winter 1996 “A Real Lulu: Zoning for Group Homes and Halfway Houses under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,” 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 369 (1996) Daniel Lauber
  • Joint Statement Of The Department Of Justice And The Department Of Housing And Urban Development: Group Homes, Local Land Use, And The Fair Housing Act.
  • American Planning Association, Policy Guide on Community Residences. September 22, 1997.
  • Rep. No. 100-711, 100th Cong. 2s Sess. At 23-24.

We await your reconsideration and welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues further.  Thank you for your good will in examining this matter.

Jim Joy, Director

Cease and Desist Order

B.1.October1

CITY OF FRANKLIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE

“The Three Rivers City

Planning and Zoning Department Tel: (603) 934-2341 316 Central Street   Fax: (603) 934-7413

Franklin New Hampshire 03235                                                     dlewis@franklinnh.org

October 1, 2015

Jim Joy

60 Depot Street

Franklin, NH 03235

Re:          Determinations from Site Inspection

Cease and Desist Order; 60 Depot Street; tax map/lot 099-050-00

Dear Mr. Joy,

First, thank you for taking the time to meet Chuck Bodien, the City’s Building Inspector and Fire Safety Code Officer, and I for the Site Inspection on Monday the 21st. After we walked through the building, and discussed some issues, we indicated that we would review the issues in greater detail and then get back to you with our findings and conclusions, Since there are two separate issues to be considered [zoning and fire and safety codes] I will address them individually. Given the type of use of the building, the use would be classified as a rooming house; this use classification is applicable for both Zoning and Fire / Life Safety Code purposes

Zoning Issues

Under the City of Franklin’s Zoning Ordinance, Rooming Houses are not an allowed use. As I indicated, this use was removed from the Zoning Ordinance Table of Uses several years ago. You could file an appeal for a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but if you were successful, the fire and life safety code issues discussed below would continue to be a requirement for keeping this building as a rooming house.

I do want to let you know that this property is located in the B-l [Business] zoning district, where, under the Table of Uses, a Two-family dwelling is allowed by right. Since, though, the property does not meet the required land area, you would need a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Obviously, several improvements [second kitchen, new bathroom(s), electrical work, fire and safety codes, etc.], all carried out under a building permit, would be required for the creation of a second dwelling unit.

Fire and Life Safety Code Issues

As mentioned above, the applicable fire and life safety codes classify this building as a rooming house. A rooming house designation carries with it significant code requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: a sprinkler system; the hard wired detectors mentioned above; appropriate fire separations; and, enclosed stairways for fire protection purposes. The design plans for all of the improvements that would be required for a rooming house could be prepared by a component contractor, but you should communicate with Captain Bodien to see if a licensed design professional may be required.

Cease and Desist Order

Based on the current use of the building, the number of residents living there, and the outstanding code issues, this letter is intended to serve as a Cease and Desist Order issued jointly by my office and the office of the Building Inspector and Fire & Life Safety Officer. By and through this letter, you are ordered to cease all rooming house uses of the property within 30-days from the date of issuance. As soon as the number of residents is below the allowed 3

unrelated persons, please contact my office so we can schedule a second inspection to verify that you have brought the property into compliance.

If you wish to set-up another meeting to discuss any issues or proposed schedules for a variance application to the ZBA, please contact me as soon as possible,

While I appreciate the support you were providing to certain members of our community, the Zoning Ordinance and the Fire and Life Safety Codes are critical to protecting the interests of the residents of the City and all of our neighborhoods. Thank you and I look forward to your cooperation and assistance in resolving these issues within the 30-day timeframe mentioned above.

Sincerely,

Richard Lewis Captain Charles Bodien
Director of Planning and Zoning Buitding Inspector and Fire & Life Safety Officer

Franklin Fire Department

cc:                            Mayor Ken Merrifield

Elizabeth Dragon, City Manager

Kevin LaChapelle, Fire Chief

Paul Fitzgerald, City Attorney