Ltr P Neuer 1625

January 6, 2025 Page 3 Page 3 of 4 4902-8209-9981, v. 1 The Board determined that the proposed use differed from the previous use because of a difference in the resident population. However, the Board granted a use variance and a site plan waiver. The Board found that the proposed use was inherently beneficial because it provides “essential health care for an underserved population ....” Id. at 2. A neighboring property owner challenged the Board's decision. The trial court upheld the Board’s approval and the Appellate Division affirmed. The trial court summarized the reasonable accommodation standards explained above and then applied those standards to find that the project justified the requested relief. That relief was reasonable and necessary because of the absence of such facilities to provide this essential care, because there was no zone in which the use was permitted and because the property had previously included a similar use. The Board also concluded that there was no evidence that granting the variance would cause undue financial and administrative burdens, undue hardship upon the community, or require a fundamental alteration of the zoning plan. Id. at 3-4. In a matter involving a nursing home and complaints by neighbors, United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 764 F. Supp. 220 (D.P.R. 1991), the government sought a temporary injunction prohibiting the closure of a nursing home in pending litigation regarding whether an order of closure by a zoning agency violated the FHA. The nursing home, which served individuals with mental and physical disabilities, moved to a new location. The zoning agency refused to permit its operation in the new location because the entity did not obtain the required permits. The entity applied for a use variance. Id. at 220-222. The agency denied the variance because the intended use would devalue the surrounding properties and there was inadequate parking. Id. at 222. The applicant appealed and alleged discrimination in violation of the ADA. The court determined that there was a high likelihood that the agency decision “was based on pressure from neighbors whose real concern is a distaste for or fear of the handicapped.” Id. at 224. The court reasoned that the only rule cited by the agency in its denial was the parking rule and that even if this rule applied, “the ‘reasonable accommodation’ provision would

ndicapped.” Id. at 224. The court reasoned that the only rule cited by the agency in its denial was the parking rule and that even if this rule applied, “the ‘reasonable accommodation’ provision would require ARPE to waive the parking requirement in this case where the actual use of the home will never necessitate the provision of the amount of parking technically required by the rule.” Id. Therefore, the court granted the preliminary injunction. We also want to bring to the Board’s attention that on September 9, 2014, the West Orange Township Council adopted Resolution 172-14, attached hereto, declaring West Orange to be a “Stigma Free Town” and declaring that the Township “supports the elimination of any stigma associated with mental health illness and will promote public awareness of mental health issues and the removal of any barriers to recovery and to work to overcome stigma, stereotyping and discrimination.” Of course, we recognize that this Board must be satisfied that this application meets the relevant standards of the Municipal Land Use Law.