Ltr P Neuer 1625

Page 1 of 4 4902-8209-9981, v. 1 150 CLOVE ROAD, 9TH FLOOR LITTLE FALLS, NJ 07424 201.896.4100  sh-law.com WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN, JR. | Partner wsullivan@sh-law.com Phone: 201-896-7215 January 6, 2025 BY EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Phillip Neuer, Esq. Chair, Zoning Board of Adjustment Township of West Orange 66 Main Street West Orange, New Jersey 07052 Re: Zinnia Health, LLC 33 Mount Pleasant Ave. Block 88, Lot 26 Our File No.: 16018.1000 Dear Chairman Neuer: In connection with the above-referenced application, which is scheduled for a continued hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on January 6, 2025, please accept the following. Primarily because of the participation in these hearings by a formal objector, I have determined that it is important to place on the record certain principles of law that are relevant to this matter. I had planned to address these principles generally in my closing but I realized that the Board's counsel, Mr. Fisher, deserved to be advised of at least the relevant authorities in time to assist the Board in its deliberations and, of course, professional courtesy requires that Mr. Dolan, on behalf of the objector, be provided with a copy of this letter as well. The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12000, (“ADA”) prohibits public entities from discriminating against individuals or their providers on the basis of a disability. The ADA applies to local zoning decisions. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. sec. 12132. “This statement constitutes a general prohibition against discrimination by public entities, regardless of activity.” New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F. 3d 293, 301 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 44 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[T]he ADA... clearly encompasses zoning decisions by the city because making such decisions is a normal function of a governmental entity”), abrogated on other grounds as noted by Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F. 3d 163, 171 n7 (2d Cir. 2001)); Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F. 3d 725, 732 (9th Cir.

rogated on other grounds as noted by Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F. 3d 163, 171 n7 (2d Cir. 2001)); Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F. 3d 725, 732 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]e decline to draw an arbitrary distinction - to prohibit public entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in some of their activities and not in others... Although we recognize