CLARKSBURG, W. Va. — Two fair housing advocate groups appeared before the Harrison County Commission on Thursday in hopes they would reverse the county’s decision to deny a permit allowing construction a group home for those with disabilities in Lost Creek.
“We’d like the commission to follow the Fair Housing Act and allow the home to be constructed,” Claire Chantler, fair housing program manager at the Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living said.
She and Jay Dworin, executive director of the Fair Housing Partnership of Pittsburgh attended the commission’s meeting in an attempt to allay fears residents within the Lost Creek community may have had about the home or the residents, explaining exactly what the eight residents in the group home would do and how most communities with a group home do not even realize it.
However, the commissioners said that was not the problem as they have nothing against those who may reside in the building.
A building permit was submitted by Ohio-based real estate company Scioto Properties to construct the home. Scioto would own the property and sublease it to ResCare, a privately-owned company which would offer the occupants “residential and support services, education, vocational training and job placement,” according to it’s website.
The permit was denied in December on the grounds that the current developer created a restrictive covenant for the property which prohibits businesses from operating in the area.
“You can’t say it’s not a business. Somebody’s getting services, somebody’s being paid for that, somebody’s buying the property and subbing it out to a not-for-profit group to provide services,” Commission President Ron Watson said. “The issue is, is it a business or is it not. Do covenants and restrictions, do they have any merits whatsoever or not?”
Scioto has appealed the denial and the commission set a deadline of March 19 to determine if they will reverse the decision.
The commission has indicated they wish for the issue to go to court to get a ruling determining if the group home would be considered a business. They expressed the sentiment that residents have a right have a covenant in place when they purchased a home honored.
Chantler attempted to provide the commission with case law dealing with the same issue.
One such example, Rhodes v. Palmetto Pathway Homes, Inc., dealt with a 1990 case before the South Carolina Supreme Court in which a covenant read:
The property hereby conveyed shall not be used otherwise than for private residence purposes, nor shall more than one residence, with the necessary outbuildings be erected on any one lot, nor shall any apartment house or tenement house be erected thereon; nor shall any one lot be subdivided or its boundary lines changed from the location as shown on said map without in any one of the cases above enumerated the written consent of the grantor endorsed on the deed of conveyance thereof.
A lower court ruling determined that a group home for mentally-impaired residents violated the covenant.
However, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling under the premise that:
“…the incident necessities of operating a group home such as maintaining records, filing accounting reports, managing, supervising, and providing care for individuals in exchange for monetary compensation are collateral to the prime purpose and function of a family housekeeping unit. Hence, these activities do not, in and of themselves, change the character of a residence from private to commercial.”
The court ultimately also concluded “that interpretation of the restrictive covenants in such a way as to prohibit location of a group residence for mentally impaired adults in a community is contrary to public policy as enunciated by both state and federal legislation.”
This was just one example of case law, according to Chantler.
“Honestly, we had hundreds of cases to choose from. We just picked a couple that really touched on the issue of commercial activity versus restrictive covenants that are for, specifically state that no commercial activity should be permitted,” she said. “They all stated the same outcome that a group home is considered a residence.”
The commission felt that no matter their decision, the case would be brought to court and they felt the need to represent their constituents’ interests.
“It’s certainly our responsibility as public servants, as elected officials, as individuals who are bosses are the general public, to take that step on their behalf and let it go where it may,” Watson said.
Dworin pleaded with the commission to step away from the case and let the citizens take it to court if they so desired because they were opening themselves up to potential fines to be paid by the taxpayers for violating the Fair Housing Act, even though they had no issue with the potential residents.
“Here you’ve got commissioners who are actually willing, they think they’re doing their residents a favor, but instead they’re exposing their residents because this is a court case that attorneys who do this kind of work, they wait for it. These are great cases [for them].”
The commissioners indicated the possibility of issuing their ruling during next week’s commission meeting on March 19.