SAYREVILLE – After denying an application for a proposed drug rehabilitation facility, the Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment has been ordered by a U.S. District Court of New Jersey judge to approve the facility.
901 Ernston Road, LLC, which is an affiliate of Recovery Centers of America (RCA), sought a use variance and amended site plan approval from the zoning board for a residential substance treatment facility at 901 Ernston Road. The board denied the application on Jan. 24.
In response, 901 Ernston Road, LLC, filed a complaint against the board and the borough in U.S. District Court on Feb. 21 and a motion for preliminary injunction on March 6.
On May 11, Judge Anne E. Thompson, sitting in Trenton, ordered that 901 Ernston Road, LLC’s, motion for preliminary injunction be granted. Thus, the zoning board must issue all zoning approvals necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, and the board cannot thwart its construction and operation.
Attorney Karl Kemm, who represents the zoning board, said that as of May 23, the case had not been fully resolved.
The property for the proposed substance treatment facility was approved by the Planning Board in 2014 as a long-term care nursing home before RCA finalized business terms for a lease agreement with 901 Ernston Road, LLC, the current owner of the property.
Because the proposed substance treatment facility was determined not to be a permitted use in the zone, 901 Ernston Road, LLC, sought a use variance from the zoning board for its approval.
The board denied the application amid safety concerns voiced by residents regarding the facility’s location. Although many residents said they were not opposed to a substance treatment facility, they noted the facility would be near homes and the Dwight D. Eisenhower Elementary School at 601 Ernston Road. Residents suggested placing the facility at a different location.
In voting to deny the application, board members shared the concerns of residents and while they also spoke in support of substance rehabilitation facilities, they agreed the area was not suited for the project.
The complaint filed by 901 Ernston Road, LLC, alleged the board’s denial amounted to illegal discrimination, and the complaint claimed the board members viewed RCA’s patients as dangerous criminals being punished for bad choices who would harm their neighbors if they escaped from the facility, instead of people being treated for a sickness.
According to the complaint, the applicant considered the board members’ safety and quality of life concerns to be a pretext for discrimination, and called the board members’ expressed concern for patients a not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) defense based on the perceived danger of the patients. The concerns expressed by residents and shared by the board in the denial, as alleged by the complaint, would be deemed as discriminatory by courts across the country.
901 Ernston Road, LLC, then filed the motion for a preliminary injunction, which, according to the District Court, is granted or denied based on a four-factor test.
In order for plaintiffs to be issued a preliminary injunction, they must first demonstrate they are likely to suffer irreparable injury without relief and they are reasonably likely to prevail eventually in the litigation. If the plaintiffs meet these threshold showings, the District Court considers whether an injunction would harm the defendants more than denying relief would harm the plaintiffs, and whether granting relief would serve the public interest, according to the court.
After applying the four-factor test to the case, the court found the factors weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief to 901 Ernston Road, LLC.
Although the court agreed with the zoning board that 901 Ernston Road, LLC, would not suffer irreparable harm from finances lost in the denial, the applicant’s showing of irreparable harm by denying treatment to prospective patients satisfied the court. In the court’s written opinion, delaying treatment for prospective members of a community residence, as well as the likelihood the board violated the Fair Housing Act by denying handicapped individuals (the patients) housing, would cause irreparable harm.
To demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing in the litigation, 901 Ernston Road, LLC, alleged the zoning board intentionally discriminated against the applicant and was treated differently based on handicap, was subject to a discriminatory impact because of the prior approval of the nursing home, and that the board failed to make reasonable accommodations in denying the application.
While the court acknowledged contradictory testimony about the substance treatment facility being different from the nursing home, the court also found the applicant presented sufficient evidence of discriminatory treatment and intent, stating comments made by board members reflected NIMBY defense and discrimination against recovering addicts, and that the board failed to demonstrate the applicant’s requested accommodation in the form of a variance was unreasonable.
If an injunction were to be granted, the applicant argued the board would not be harmed because the facility conforms with its zone and would not burden municipal services, and opening the facility favors the public interest by providing treatment to address opioid abuse and preventing discrimination against recovering addicts.
In response, the zoning board argued if 901 Ernston Road, LLC, did not succeed on the merits on its claim, the board would suffer irreparable harm, and would not serve the public interest because the applicant is a for-profit corporation.
The court found the zoning board’s arguments unpersuasive because the board failed to approve the application based on discriminatory treatment, as federal law has expressed a public policy favoring an end to discrimination in housing based on handicap and the establishment of housing programs for recovering drug addicts, and the applicant being a private corporation has no bearing on the value of services it intends to provide.
After Thompson issued her order, the zoning board went into executive (closed) session to discuss the litigation at its May 23 meeting. Upon reconvening before the public, Kemm said the rest of the case had been not resolved as of that meeting. He said he would keep the board advised on the progress and resolution of the case.
Contact Matthew Sockol at [email protected].