Home » Legislature & Courts » Briefs and Complaints » Discrimination Briefs and Complaints
Complaint Challenging Boca Raton Ordinance That Bans "Sober Houses"
Filed March 7, 2003
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
JEFFREY O., MICHAEL DOE, TODD C., DOUG B., WILLIAM F., STEVE L., PETER B., REGENCY PROPERTIES OF BOCA RATON, INC., a Florida corporation, and AWAKENINGS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF BOCA RATON, a Florida municipal corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jeffrey O., Michael Doe, Todd C., Doug B., William F., Steve L., Peter B., Regency Properties of Boca Raton, Inc. ("Boca House"), a Florida corporation, and Awakenings of Florida, Inc. ("Awakenings"), a Florida corporation, sue Defendant City of Boca Raton (the "City"), a Florida municipal corporation, and allege:
Introduction
1. By this action, Plaintiffs seek relief from a zoning ordinance (City Ordinance No. 4649; the "Ordinance") recently adopted by the City that prohibits sober living residences for people in recoverypersons recovering from drug or alcohol addiction from being locatedresiding in any residential neighborhoods within the City. The Ordinance specifically targets Plaintiffs and other related non-parties by banishing persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction from the City's residential areas. The Ordinance takes effect immediately and makes no provision for grandfathering the City's 12-plus existing sober living residences, so that they will have to cease providing drug and alcohol-free housing to persons in recovery. The City's conduct threatens to displace Boca House's and Awakening's current residents from the residential neighborhood where they now reside and has caused continuing harm to Plaintiffs, as well as to Boca House's and Awakenings' prospective handicapped and disabled residents, who are on waiting lists and in need of independent, drug and alcohol-free housing opportunities. Plaintiffs also challenge the City's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation with respect to other zoning provisions that prohibit sober living residences from having four or more unrelated residents in a single dwelling unit, even on a temporary or emergency basis.
2. The Ordinance specifically targets Plaintiffs and other related non-parties by banishing persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction from the City's residential areas.The City's has not offered a tenable pretense of having any non-discriminatory intent was clearly discriminatory, as both City officials and the constituency they seek to placate, have madeit abundantly clear through their statements and actions that theytheir intendedt to preclude persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction from continuing to reside near the non-disabled population of the City. The City was motivated by public prejudice against persons in recovery. In fact, the hearing at which the Ordinance was enacted is rife with statements to the effect that sober living facilities attract "pedophiles, murderers, God knows what . . . " and that persons in recovery are "not our citizens." The City enacted the Ordinance based on these expressed stereotypes and generalized fears about people in recovery with disabilities. The City made its decision in the context of strong, discriminatory opposition to persons who live in sober houses, which in turn tainted the City with discriminatory intent. The result of the Ordinance is to prohibit in most of the City any residential use that seeks to provide the drug and alcohol-free environment critically needed for persons to recover successfully from addiction. Thus, the City iswould now forcinge the relocation away from other City residents of persons who, due to addiction, need drug and alcohol-free sober living residences to relocate to areas segregated from other City residents. The City now restricts such residences to areas and which are zoned for medical and hospital or motel uses -- , in essence creating a defined ghetto for persons in recovery.
Parties and Jurisdiction
3. This action arises under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq. (the "FHAA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 11213, et seq. (the "ADA"), the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the equal protection and due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for which 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy. The action arises from the City's discrimination on the basis of handicap or disability in the zoning and regulation of housing. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (a)(3) and (a)(4), and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613.
4. Venue is appropriate in the Southern District of Florida because the cause of action accrued in Palm Beach County, Florida and because the Defendant is a municipality located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
5. Plaintiff, Jeffrey O., is a recovering alcoholic with disabilities, who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
6. Plaintiff, Michael Doe, is a recovering alcoholic with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
7. Plaintiff, Todd C., is a recovering alcoholic with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
8. Plaintiff, Doug B., is a recovering drug addict with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
9. Plaintiff, William F., is a recovering drug addict with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
10. Plaintiff, Steve L., is a recovering drug addict with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
11. Plaintiff, Peter B., is a recovering drug addict with disabilities who is in need of stable housing during his transition from rehabilitation to integrated community living.
12. Plaintiffs Jeffrey O., Michael Doe, Todd C., Doug B., William F., Steve L., Peter
B., (the "Residents") currently reside in drug and alcohol-free rental housing for persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction operated by Plaintiff Boca House. They will be forced to move out of the single and multi-family residential areas of the City if injunctive relief barring enforcement of the Ordinance is not granted. The Residents are qualified persons with disabilities that affect one or more major life activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives, including abstaining from alcohol or drug abuse without a structured supportive setting and living independently without a sober housing environment. In addition, they have been diagnosed as suffering from alcohol or drug dependence; they are participating in alcohol or drug treatment on an outpatient basis at facilities unrelated to Boca House and Awakenings; and they are regarded as disabled. All other individuals residing at Boca House and Awakenings are similarly "handicapped" within the meaning of the FHAA and 24 C.F.R. § 100.201(a)(2), and are "qualified persons with disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
13. Boca House is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is in Boca Raton, Florida. Awakenings is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is in Boca Raton, Florida. Boca House and Awakenings own housing units (apartments, townhomes and single family homes) in residential settings, which they rent to individuals who are recovering from substance addiction so they can live in a drug and alcohol-free environment.
14. Because of the City's actions described above and below, the Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be injured by the City's discriminatory housing practices and are therefore "aggrieved persons" within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(d). Boca House and Awakenings have standing as housing providers to bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their residents who are persons with disabilities.
15. The City is a municipal corporation established and organized under the laws of Florida and is located in Palm Beach County, Florida. As such, it is, and was, acting under color of state law. Further, it provides programs and services in the form of zoning laws and enforcement of those laws.
Background Facts
The Sober Living Residences
16. Since 1990, in response to an ever increasing demand for safe, drug and alcohol-free housing, Boca House and Awakenings have operated apartment buildings and rented housing to persons that are recovering from drug or alcohol addiction who are currently not illegally using controlled substances, and to any other persons with disabilities who want to live in a supportive drug and alcohol-free environment.
17. Boca House and Awakenings provide their residents a safe environment to live in, typically after they have successfully completed substance abuse treatment. To accomplish this, both Boca House and Awakenings require drug testing as a condition of residency and expel residents found to be using drugs or alcohol. Although Boca House and Awakenings provide a supportive environment, they do not provide treatment or counseling for drug or alcohol addiction.
18. Alcoholism and drug addiction are lifetime diseases. They are chronic, progressive and, ultimately, fatal. Avoiding relapse and progressing in recovery are therefore the most important aspects of a recovering addict's life. Finding and staying in a healthy, functional environment, surrounded by people who are not using alcohol or drugs, away from people and situations that previously triggered substance use, with access to transportation and work opportunities, are essential elements to avoiding relapse.
19. Sober living residences such as Boca House and Awakenings provide such an environment and operate on the premise that people in the early, and for some, later stages of recovery from drug and alcohol addiction will have a better chance of success in remaining sober if they live in a highly supportive environment where substance abuse is not tolerated.
20. Each apartment, townhome or single family home operated by Boca House and Awakenings is unsupervised and is governed by its residents, who pay rent and maintain the household. The residents in each home are the functional equivalent of a family and run their household as they see fit. Any resident who uses drugs or alcohol is immediately and automatically expelled. While many Boca House and Awakenings residents have made multiple prior attempts at long-term recovery, the majority of those who live at Boca House or Awakenings for one year or more maintain long-term sobriety.
21. People who are handicapped or disabled by alcoholism or drug abuse are more likely to need living arrangements such as what a sober living residence provides, in which groups of unrelated individuals reside together in residential neighborhoods for mutual support during the recovery process. The Ordinance therefore has a disparate impact on such handicapped or disabled people in recovery.
22. Between 1990 and the passage of the Ordinance on May 29, 2002, Boca House and Awakenings purchased various buildings in the City and renovated them according to code in order to provide affordable drug and alcohol-free housing to disabled persons. Boca House and Awakenings invested time, money and effort into these projects.
23. Boca House and Awakenings intend to continue renting housing to persons who are recovering from drug or alcohol addiction and any other persons with a disability who want to live in a supportive drug and alcohol-free environment. The City has, however, routinely targeted them for arbitrary, discriminatory and abusive regulatory and enforcement actions. It has also refused to provide necessary reasonable accommodations from zoning restrictions, such as a City's limitation on four or more unrelated persons residing in a single dwelling unit, even where such accommodation was sought for temporary or emergency situations. The City's efforts were meant to impede Boca House's and Awakenings' ability to provide the drug and alcohol-free housing needed by persons in recovery. These efforts culminated with the passage of the Ordinance on May 29, 2002, which imposes an outright ban on sober living residences in residential zoning districts.
24. Since the enactment of the Ordinance, Boca House and Awakenings have had opportunities to acquire additional properties that would provide much needed housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or substance addiction. But, because of the City's actions, Boca House and Awakenings has had to forgo providing any additional such housing. The City's actions currently prevent Boca House and Awakenings from acquiring or converting any property in the City's residential areas to provide housing in a supportive drug and alcohol-free environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or substance addiction. In addition, the City's overly restrictive interpretation of its zoning code and refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation therefrom has limited the number of residents at Boca House's and Awakenings' existing properties. The City's actions have thus caused significant and continuing harm to Boca House and Awakenings. The City's actions have also caused significant and continuing harm to Boca House's and Awakenings' prospective residents, who are on waiting lists for sober living residence housing.
25. Florida state law does not prohibit the current uses of Boca House and Awakenings' properties, and contains no prohibition against private housing providers requiring drug or alcohol testing as a condition of residency. But because the Ordinance would apply to the established use of Boca House and Awakenings' properties, it threatens to prevent them from continuing to provide housing to persons who are recovering from drug or alcohol addiction and other persons with disabilities who want to live in a supportive, drug and alcohol-free environment.
The City's Ordinance
26. On May 29, 2002, the City's Council enacted the Ordinance which provides:
Section 1. Section 28-2, Code of Ordinances, is amended to read:
"Substance Abuse Treatment Facility" shall mean a service provider or facility that is: 1) licensed or required to be licensed pursuant to Section 397.311(18). Fla. Stat. or 2) used for room and board only and in which treatment and rehabilitation activities are provided at locations other than the primary residential facility, whether or not the facilities used for room and board and for treatment and rehabilitation are operated under the auspices of the same provider. For the purposes of this paragraph (2), the following shall be deemed to satisfy the "treatment and rehabilitation activities" component: (a) service providers or facilities which require tenants to participate in treatment and rehabilitation activities as a term or condition of, or essential component of, the tenancy: or (b) service providers or facilities which facilitate, promote, monitor, or maintain records of, tenant participation in treatment and rehabilitation activities, or perform testing to determine whether tenants are drug and alcohol free, or receive reports of results of such testing.
"Social Service activities" shall mean the administration of any community-oriented service including offices, meetings, storage, library and similar administrative users. It shall not mean any social service activities, including without limitation, substance rehabilitation services, counseling activities and services, shelters for the homeless or abused, food/meal distribution for the needy, job training, and teen oriented programs.
Section 2. Section 28-197, Code of Ordinances, is created to read:
Section 28-197. Status of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities.
Any substance Abuse Treatment Facility that exists as of the effective date of this ordinance must comply with all provisions and requirements of this ordinance no later than eighteen (18) months after its effective date.
Section 3. Section 28-743, Code of Ordinances, is amended to read:
Section 28-743. Conditional uses.
(e) Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, provided that such facilities shall not be located within a radius of 1,000 feet of another existing facility.
27. The ordinance allows the uses it defines as "Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities" only in the areas that are zoned for medical and hospital uses (the MC - Medical Center district), or with conditional approval from the City council to areas zoned for motelbusiness use (the RB-1 - Motel Business district). In subsequent correspondence, the City has confirmed that uses that meet the revised definition of "Substance Abuse Treatment Facility" are restricted to the MC or RB-1 districts, that the Ordinance prohibits such uses in any other zoning district, and that at the end of the 18-month period set forth in Section 2 of the Ordinance any established use meeting the definition of "Substance Abuse Treatment Facility" would be subject to the locational requirements of the Ordinance.
28. The Ordinance targets any residential use that makes treatment or rehabilitation a condition of residency even if the treatment or rehabilitation takes place off site and is unaffiliated with the housing provider. It also extends to residential uses that require drug or alcohol testing as a condition of residency or so much as receive a report of drug or alcohol testing regarding a resident. The City thus now prohibits sober living residences from being established or expanded in any of the City's residential zoning districts. And established sober living residences may not be continued in such areas past November 2003.
29. The Ordinance as originally drafted applied only to licensed facilities providing treatment or rehabilitation services. During the Commission's debate, however, the Ordinance was revised first to include within the definition of a "Substance Abuse Treatment Facility" non-licensed facilities, and then broadened to include even mere residential uses based solely upon the receipt of a report of substance abuse testing regarding a resident.
30. The City is, therefore, not simply targeting licensed facilities or the provision of counseling or medical treatment. Rather, the Ordinance constitutes a sweeping attack aimed at excluding persons in recovery from residing in any residential district in the City. The Ordinance is expressly designed to relegate any housing provider that provides the environment needed by persons in recovery to the MC or RB-1 districts, where no other residential uses are located. In effect, the City has segregated from the remainder of the City's residential population those City residents that due to addiction require a supportive drug and alcohol-free environment. This causes the type of isolation of handicapped and disabled persons that the FHAA and the ADA were enacted to prohibit.
31. Additionally, the Ordinance requires that Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities "not be located within a radius of 1,000 feet of another existing facility" thereby restricting these facilities to the point where they may cease to exist altogether.
32. The Ordinance applies retroactively requiring that "any substance abuse treatment facility that exists as of the effective date of this Ordinance must comply with all provisions and requirements of this ordinance no later than 18 months after its effective date." This last requirement was inserted specifically to target Boca House and Awakenings and to displace the Residents. The Ordinance was thus created as a means to expel and ban specific, disabled or handicapped persons from the City's residential neighborhoods based solely on their federally protected status.
33. The City's discriminatory intent to oust specific disabled or handicapped individuals from the City's residential districts is reflected by the statements of the City Attorney Diana Grub Frieser, Mayor Steve Abrams, and Council Members during regular Council meetings.
34. For instance, City Attorney Diana Grub Frieser explained how the Ordinance was intended to address not just licensed facilities but any residential use that houses persons in recovery in residential areas:
This Ordinance as drafted was intentionally drafted, based on direction from this council, to broadly encompass both the statutory definitions [of a treatment facility] and more. And the reason I say that is as you will recall, when the statute was going through the legislative process at different times it had a much broader scope. And what was adopted, in fact, had a narrower scope excluding certain facilities that the city had concerns about and wanted to address, because we believe that they had similar adverse impacts in our residential areas. And that's why it was drafted broader.
35. Throughout the Council meeting at which the Ordinance was enacted, neighbors expressed their disdain for the Residents and made clear their desire to expel the Residents from the City. Among them:
a) Rose Vinti, the President of Boca Hill Condominium Association (condominiums located across the street from Boca House) explained that "living in a sober house area would be deteriorating to the surrounding neighborhood," and that the condominium owners "would like to see them go."
b) Grace Fisher, another resident, insisted that allowing former substance abusers to continue residing in the City's neighborhoods would result in the ghettoization of those neighborhoods, particularly her own. She was concerned that "adult drug addicts [were being put] into a residential neighborhood" where she felt they did not have a right to be and that Boca House and Awakenings attract "pedophiles, murderers, God knows what . . . . You are putting adult drug addicts into a residential neighborhood."
c) Another neighbor, Anthony Amunatogui, stated: "My concern, is not with the halfway house. It's the location in my neighborhood. . . . There [are] appropriate places to house those type[s] of facilities and we should house those facilities in those places."
d) Mark Traveis, the President of Boca Marquee's Condominium Association (located on Southwest 6th Street) also voiced his opinion: "Addicts in every family, sure, but do they have to be in my backyard and across the street, down everywhere in such concentration?"
e) Carolyn O'Brien, a business owner, landlord and resident of the City: "[l]et's get them [addicts] out."
36. During the Council Meeting Mayor Abrams and several Council Members acknowledged that the Ordinance serves to ease the frustrations and complaints of the neighbors of sober living residences. The statements of the Mayor and Council Members confirm that the City's intent of the Ordinance was to discriminate against handicapped individuals and segregate them from the remainder of the City's residents. Particularly indicative of this intent is Mayor Abrams' exclamation that "[t]here is a time and place for everything, and there are appropriate places for these facilities, but this neighborhood is not it."
37. Councilwoman Carol Hanson followed by remarking on her six year struggle to make the sort of "improvements" the Ordinance accomplishes. Most of the other Council Members agreed, including Councilwoman Susan Haynie who referred to herself as the Council's "original NIMBY" and acknowledged that the Ordinance was enacted to provide a solution to the "problem" of persons in recovery residing in the City's residential neighborhoods.
38. In addition to the Ordinance, the City's discrimination has been carried out through the use of unreasonably restrictive zoning and regulations, arbitrary, capricious and abusive zoning and building code enforcement practices, and attempts to convince other governmental bodies to take overly aggressive regulatory actions -- all of which were intended to limit Boca House's and Awakenings' ability to rent housing to handicapped or disabled persons and to limit handicapped or disabled persons' choice of housing in residential areas. The Ordinance is the culmination of the City's discriminatory efforts, and now prohibits both the establishment and continuation of sober living residences in any residential areas.
39. The Ordinance is purposefully discriminatory against persons with disabilities and discriminatory on its face, and for both reasons is therefore a per se violation of the FHAA and ADA. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have requested reasonable accommodations from the Ordinance necessary to afford equal housing opportunities to persons with disabilities. Suggested accommodations included removing the Ordinance's retroactive language to allow grandfathering of existing uses and modifying its definition of the term "Substance Abuse Treatment Facility" to exclude residential uses that do not provide treatment or counseling services. The City has refused to make such accommodations. City officials have indeed refused to so much as place the issue on the City Commission's agenda, despite various requests from the Plaintiffs.
40. Further, Plaintiffs have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City's limitation on four or more unrelated persons living together, regardless of the size of the living unit, but the City has continued to enforce that prohibition even where the limitation is exceeded only on a temporary or emergency basis.
41. Plaintiffs have attempted to resolve their concerns regarding the Ordinance amicably but to no avail. Throughout various attempts to negotiate with the City, all that has been accomplished is the City attorney's suggestion that the City Council might consider making changes to the Ordinance at some indefinite future time.
42. Meanwhile, however, the Ordinance remains in effect and is causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs and the Residents, as well as other members of the City's targeted class of persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. Additionally as Boca House and Awakenings are now prohibited from providing any additional drug and alcohol free housing, the City's conduct is causing ongoing harm to persons who have applied to become Boca House's and Awakenings' residents and are on waiting lists for independent housing opportunities.
43. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel to represent them in this action and have agreed to pay them reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Count One: Violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act
44. The Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 43.
45. The City's Ordinance violates the FHAA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f), because the Ordinance discriminates against the Plaintiffs and other Boca House and Awakenings residents on the basis of their disabled and handicapped status.
46. The City's Ordinance is discriminatory on its face. Additionally, it was enacted with discriminatory intent and has a disparate impact on persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.
47. The City has refused to provide a reasonable accommodation from the City's limitation on four or more unrelated persons living together, regardless of the size of the living unit, and has continued to enforce that prohibition even where the limitation is exceeded only on a temporary or emergency basis.
48. The City's Ordinance does not contain, and the City has refused to make, a reasonable accommodation, even though reasonable accommodations are necessary to afford handicapped and disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
49. As a result of the City's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other Boca House and Awakenings residents have been and continue to be damaged.
Count Two: Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
50. The Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 43.
51. The City's Ordinance violates the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., because it subjects the Plaintiffs to discrimination.
52. The Plaintiffs and the other residents of Boca House and Awakenings are "qualified individuals" as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
53. The Plaintiffs and the other residents of Boca House and Awakenings qualify as persons with disabilities as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
54. The City is a public entity as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
55. The Plaintiffs and the other residents of Boca House and Awakenings would and could have legally resided in their current residences but for the Ordinance.
56. The City is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by enacting the Ordinance and refusing to repeal it.
57. The City's Ordinance is discriminatory on its face. Additionally, it was enacted with discriminatory intent and has a disparate impact on persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.
58. The City has refused to provide a reasonable accommodation from the City's limitation on four or more unrelated persons living together, regardless of the size of the living unit, and has continued to enforce that prohibition even where the limitation is exceeded only on a temporary or emergency basis.
59. The City's Ordinance does not contain, and the City has refused to make, a reasonable accommodation, even though reasonable accommodations are necessary to afford handicapped and disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
60. As a result of the City's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the other residents of Boca House and Awakenings have been and continue to be damaged.
Count Three: Declaratory Judgment
61. The Plaintiffs re-allege and restates paragraphs 1 through 43.
62. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 where the Plaintiffs seek a declaration of their rights.
63. There is an actual, ongoing controversy between the Plaintiffs and the City as to whether the Ordinance violates federal law or is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, and whether the City has illegally refused to provide a necessary reasonable accommodation from the limitation on four or more unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit.
64. The Plaintiffs have a reasonable apprehension of enforcement or other proceedings by the City.
65. The controversy between the Plaintiffs and the City is ripe for resolution.
Count Four: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
66. The Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 43.
67. The Plaintiffs and the other residents of Boca House and Awakenings have been deprived, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, particularly the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy.
68. The City's actions, taken under color of law, are arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, discriminate against disabled and handicapped persons, and violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution.
69. As a result of the City's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs have been and continue to be damaged.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs request that this Court:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, declaring that the City violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring the City's Ordinance unlawful and void ab initio, and declaring that the City must provide a reasonable accommodation to allow four or more unrelated persons in a sober living residence dwelling unit;
b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the City, its officers and officials, their successors in office, their agents, and all those acting or purporting to act in concert with them, from enforcing the Ordinance or, as it applies to sober living residences, the limitation on four or more unrelated persons in a dwelling unit;
c. Award the Plaintiffs actual and compensatory damages;
d. Award the Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 3613, and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a); and
e. Award all further relief that the Court deems proper and necessary.
Dated: March 7th, 2003.
