Homes of Hope Wins Battle in Court

Homes of Hope, Inc. vs. Mt. Holly Township: Seeking Equity in Housing for the Homeless

Homes of Hope, Inc., a member company of The Affordable Homes Group, Inc., applied to the Mt. Holly Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in March of 2006 for a use variance to provide temporary housing for homeless persons at a property it had owned for 25 years.  Homes of Hope (HofH) made a dual application, seeking to (1) convert an unused office on the first floor into an efficiency apartment to provide shelter for a single adult, and (2) to license the building as a Shelter for the Homeless with New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs. 

A shelter license would allow Homes of Hope to better manage its residents, particularly in cases where a person may become unruly or uncooperative.  Licensed shelters are exempt from the Landlord/Tenant laws firmly upheld throughout the state in rental cases, whereby it takes six weeks at best – and up to two years at worst – to remove difficult tenants.  Not only do problematic residents disrupt the community in which they live, but cost housing providers like us countless hours of staff time, attorneys’ fees and often extremely high property repair expenses after their removal.

After Homes of Hope joined AHG in September of 2005, it leased the subject property to our social service agency, People First!, who placed homeless individuals and families in the residence under our program.  We do not operate a pure emergency shelter for homeless, but rather provide a comprehensive Transitional Housing program for the homeless, whereby each person is treated as a unique individual for whom we help tailor a social service plan that assists the person in accomplishing their own goals and actions.  Under our program, residents are placed for periods of up to two years, during which time they seek to get their lives in order and to become independent and self-sufficient again. 

In Mt. Holly, like nearly every municipality in the State of New Jersey, unrelated homeless people cannot share an apartment, condo or single family house without violating municipal definitions of what constitutes a legitimate 'housekeeping unit,' or the 'functional equivalent of a family'.  Unrelated adults, and even two families living together, may not occupy the same housing unit.  Thus, single homeless people have fewer options for temporary housing and, without one-bedroom units or efficiency apartments available, these individuals are excluded from what may be their home community by such restrictive zoning laws.

Municipalities operate under the rationale that if a shelter for the homeless is not expressly permitted in the ordinances then it is denied.  Local governments, faced with what residents mistakenly perceive as a threat to their safety and degradation to their quality of life, deny shelter properties as a matter of course.  Most every elected official and township resident might admit that shelters are necessary, if asked, and even confirm that our organization operates the best program it can.  But even so, not a single property address we have ever proposed in our twenty-year history as a shelter provider for the homeless has been considered appropriate by the community.  No public official or concerned citizen has ever come forth and said where a shelter would be appropriate, so our organization is left to continue attempts to make that decision on its own.

The recent case before Honorable Judge Sweeney challenged the Zoning Board of Adjustment's denial of the shelter application on two counts.  First, we alleged that the ZBA denial was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.  Second, we requested that the court find the Ordinances themselves unconstitutional, since they do not allow Shelters for the Homeless as a permitted or conditional use anywhere in town

Judge Sweeney sided with us on the first request and reversed the Board’s denial, granting us the Use Variance.  In his ruling Judge Sweeney stated that, “It is not debatable that providing housing for the homeless is an inherently beneficial use,” and that being inherently beneficial, “presumptively satisfies the positive criteria for a use variance.”

The judge did not, however, grant us the claim that the Ordinances themselves were unconstitutional, stating that that the broader issue need not be reached when the specific relief sought for the matter at hand was addressed by the current ruling. 

It is our contention that, just like the Mt. Laurel affordable housing cases of the 1980s, every municipality should provide its fair share of housing for all the citizens of its town, including the homeless. 

It has been Mt. Holly's complaint for years that it is already the center of more than its fair share of housing within the county.  We disagree, and so did Judge Sweeney.  We do believe that every town ought to be mandated to provide permissive zoning for shelters.

Read “A History of Shelter Housing in Mt. Holly” for background to the issue.

We hope to find a way to get the larger constitutional issue back before the court, since it is the heart of the matter at hand.  Homeless people deserve adequate housing and services that can assist them on the road to independence.  Anything less is unsatisfactory for a society as rich and as advanced as ours.

We'd welcome your comments, questions or other input on this critical issue.  Send them to dialogue@affordablehomesgroup.com

The Affordable Homes Group, Inc. and all of its member companies is an equal opportunity housing provider.  All persons are considered regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin

.

Delta Real Estate   Home Start, Inc.   Homes of Hope

People First   The Salt & Light Co., Inc.   Contact Us