Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney tells Dade City planning board federal law treats people in recovery as disabled; recommended reasonable-accommodation procedure required by state
Summary
City attorney Patrick Brackens told the Dade City Planning Board that federal law (Fair Housing Act, ADA, Rehabilitation Act) treats people in recovery as having disabilities and that Florida law requires cities to adopt a reasonable-accommodation procedure for certified recovery residences; the board took no formal action.
City attorney Patrick Brackens told the Dade City Planning Board that, under federal law, people recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are considered individuals with disabilities and are therefore entitled to nondiscriminatory treatment in land-use decisions.
"Alcoholism, like drug addiction, is an impairment under the definitions of both the FHA, the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act," Brackens said, summarizing decades of federal guidance and a controlling district-court decision. He told the board that without a reasonable-accommodation procedure local governments risk litigation and cited a 2007 Southern District of Florida decision (Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton) in which zoning changes targeting group residential facilities were struck down.
Brackens explained that Florida law (citing Fla. Stat. 397.487 and Fla. Stat. 397.311) requires municipalities to adopt a specific reasonable-accommodation request procedure and that the city ordinance before the commission tracks that statutory template. He outlined the four statutory levels of certified recovery residences — from democratically run homes for residents with at least nine months of sobriety (level 1) to licensed facilities combining residence and treatment (level 4) — and emphasized that clinical services may not be performed at most residences.
During the discussion staff told the board the city has received zero requests for reasonable accommodation to date. A resident, Mary McKnight, asked for concrete examples of what a reasonable accommodation might look like; Brackens replied that case law requires "each case has to be decided on a case-by-case basis" and that accommodations are evaluated by balancing administrative and financial burdens against statutory protections. Several board members asked whether these matters come before the planning board or the commission; Brackens said planning boards can consider land-development regulations and that the board could act on zoning or use regulations in appropriate cases.
No formal motion or vote was taken on the recovery-residence topic; the presentation was informational and aimed at guiding future consideration if an application or accommodation request is filed.
