What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering
addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their
attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting
the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a
thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if
the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school
and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city
to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned
single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is
unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family
residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic
and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and
zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the
early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above,
claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under
other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the
time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are
subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself.
Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at
facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if
litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility
is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a
school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with
this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation -
any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail
transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED
by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.

Take a look at the attached memo produced by Oxford House.  Their position is that the city cannot prohibit several recovering addicts from living together in a single family home.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:  This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:28 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.

Phillip:

I ran into something like this a couple of years ago and remember it being very, very tricky. I’m having trouble putting my hands on it, but somewhere (OKC, I think) did some significant research on the matter. At that time, they were referring to this type of venture as an Oxford house. From what I recall, their take was essentially that under the ADA and the Fair Housing Act, a city cannot discriminate based on addiction status. Also, remember that when talking about that it isn’t just intended, but whether there is a disproportionate discriminatory impact. The issue I was dealing with, and that at least part of the notes I read, was how many people can live in one structure. Most places will allow families of any size, but only a set number of unrelated people. I think the research I saw on it said that the city that did the memo thought that the reasonable accommodation necessary was to treat the sober living house like you would a family, so unlimited residents. I could be misremembering that though. It seemed smarter to me that a city couldn’t deny the use of a house as a sober living house, just because of that, as long as the use conformed with all of the other city codes including the number of residents. Treating that use like you would treat a family seemed to be trying to treat the sober living house better just because of the status as a sober living house. That doesn’t even start incorporate the issues of fire codes and other occupancy limit related issues.

In my instance, nothing ended up coming to a head on it, so I’m not sure what the proper outcome should be, but finding that research would probably help point you in the right direction. Again, I’m pretty sure that was an Oklahoma City matter, but I could be wrong. If I can find it, I’ll send it directly to you.

This is definitely a situation where everyone agrees that it is a good purpose and people that need help need to be able to find it, but no one ever wants it next to their own house. It is a tough one for sure.

I hope that helps.

Thanks,

Jared Harrison
Harrison & Mecklenburg, Inc.
202 N. 6th Street
P.O. Box 658
Kingfisher, OK 73750
(Phone) 405-375-6484
(Fax) 405-375-6413
Email: jared@hmlawoffice.commailto:jared@hmlawoffice.com
Website: www.hmlawoffice.comhttp://www.hmlawoffice.com/
HM

[AY8OaK+2H4ydAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information which is legally privileged and/or confidential, and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at (405) 375-6484.

From: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:28 PM
To: "oama@lists.imla.org" oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.

Our city has been forced to do some research on this issue lately. Some and my colleagues and I ha e done considerable reserarch on the issue. If you’ll privately message me, I’ll see what I’m allowed to release at this time! Amy
Amy.douglas@okc.gov

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef

From: Jared Harrison jared@hmlawoffice.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:42:08 PM
To: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com; oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Sober living facility and the ADA

Phillip:

I ran into something like this a couple of years ago and remember it being very, very tricky. I’m having trouble putting my hands on it, but somewhere (OKC, I think) did some significant research on the matter. At that time, they were referring to this type of venture as an Oxford house. From what I recall, their take was essentially that under the ADA and the Fair Housing Act, a city cannot discriminate based on addiction status. Also, remember that when talking about that it isn’t just intended, but whether there is a disproportionate discriminatory impact. The issue I was dealing with, and that at least part of the notes I read, was how many people can live in one structure. Most places will allow families of any size, but only a set number of unrelated people. I think the research I saw on it said that the city that did the memo thought that the reasonable accommodation necessary was to treat the sober living house like you would a family, so unlimited residents. I could be misremembering that though. It seemed smarter to me that a city couldn’t deny the use of a house as a sober living house, just because of that, as long as the use conformed with all of the other city codes including the number of residents. Treating that use like you would treat a family seemed to be trying to treat the sober living house better just because of the status as a sober living house. That doesn’t even start incorporate the issues of fire codes and other occupancy limit related issues.

In my instance, nothing ended up coming to a head on it, so I’m not sure what the proper outcome should be, but finding that research would probably help point you in the right direction. Again, I’m pretty sure that was an Oklahoma City matter, but I could be wrong. If I can find it, I’ll send it directly to you.

This is definitely a situation where everyone agrees that it is a good purpose and people that need help need to be able to find it, but no one ever wants it next to their own house. It is a tough one for sure.

I hope that helps.

Thanks,

Jared Harrison
Harrison & Mecklenburg, Inc.
202 N. 6th Street
P.O. Box 658
Kingfisher, OK 73750
(Phone) 405-375-6484
(Fax) 405-375-6413
Email: jared@hmlawoffice.commailto:jared@hmlawoffice.com
Website: www.hmlawoffice.comhttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hmlawoffice.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Camy.douglas%40okc.gov%7C957ba49dc71f4d5c81dc08d9681998ee%7C837e0d97dd9d4d0097e688f05a32ee59%7C0%7C0%7C637655281856974518%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=%2FDGj0CNnzOokJHI7BfE2AWanJgBJxtdgod4Fc2%2FI7E4%3D&reserved=0
HM

[AY8OaK+2H4ydAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information which is legally privileged and/or confidential, and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at (405) 375-6484.

From: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:28 PM
To: "oama@lists.imla.org" oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.

P.O. Box 1886

Ada, OK 74820

Phone: 580-759-0049

Fax: 580-759-2177

Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.

Norman had to deal with Oxford House issues a couple of different times and found Federal law precluded the City from regulating location in a residential zoning district.

Jeff Harley Bryant

On Aug 25, 2021, at 6:58 PM, david davis ddavislaw@live.com wrote:


Take a look at the attached memo produced by Oxford House.  Their position is that the city cannot prohibit several recovering addicts from living together in a single family home.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:  This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:28 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.
<zonememo.pdf>

Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org

Yes, they have a right to locate in residential zoning districts. Look at the Bangerter case out of the 10th Circuit. It’s an older case but still good law and cited by lots of other courts. Recovering addicts are considered disabled under ADA and FHA. Strict scrutiny will apply to any regulations you try to establish.

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef

From: Jeff Bryant via Oama oama@lists.imla.org
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:35:28 AM
To: david davis ddavislaw@live.com
Cc: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Sober living facility and the ADA

Norman had to deal with Oxford House issues a couple of different times and found Federal law precluded the City from regulating location in a residential zoning district.

Jeff Harley Bryant

On Aug 25, 2021, at 6:58 PM, david davis ddavislaw@live.com wrote:


Take a look at the attached memo produced by Oxford House.  Their position is that the city cannot prohibit several recovering addicts from living together in a single family home.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:  This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Phillip Morton mortonlawoffice@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:28 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.
<zonememo.pdf>

Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.

Very good discussion and input from everyone on this issue. In Edmond we have several Oxford Houses open and it has been a challenge to convince my clients and the complaining parties, they have a right to locate in residential districts as Amy and Jeff have said. From a practical standpoint we have not had any problems with the actual Oxford House and their residents. I found they want to be left alone and will not cause any problems and they regulate themselves for the most part. So in answer to Mr. Morton’s question yes there are pitfalls if go after Oxford Houses.  Steve Murdock

From: Douglas, Amy G Amy.Douglas@okc.gov
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:43 AM
To: Jeff Bryant jbryant@omag.org; david davis ddavislaw@live.com
Cc: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Sober living facility and the ADA

Yes, they have a right to locate in residential zoning districts. Look at the Bangerter case out of the 10th Circuit. It’s an older case but still good law and cited by lots of other courts. Recovering addicts are considered disabled under ADA and FHA. Strict scrutiny will apply to any regulations you try to establish.

Get Outlook for iOShttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef&data=04%7C01%7Csteve.murdock%40edmondok.com%7C0d60bbe5ba8b46e8e38208d96886a53e%7C3195f3c43f8040f3bbea4424fe6a0c3e%7C0%7C1%7C637655749813043414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=iPGe8c3oLx%2FqxVWDjQAMPz4RBmwUIM55%2FqTOOX9VcLo%3D&reserved=0

From: Jeff Bryant via Oama <oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:35:28 AM
To: david davis <ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com>
Cc: oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Re: Sober living facility and the ADA

Norman had to deal with Oxford House issues a couple of different times and found Federal law precluded the City from regulating location in a residential zoning district.
Jeff Harley Bryant

On Aug 25, 2021, at 6:58 PM, david davis <ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com> wrote:

Take a look at the attached memo produced by Oxford House.  Their position is that the city cannot prohibit several recovering addicts from living together in a single family home.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:  This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Phillip Morton <mortonlawoffice@gmail.commailto:mortonlawoffice@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:28 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Sober living facility and the ADA

What I would describe as a transitional living center for recovering addicts has opened in a municipality I represent. The owners and their attorney deny that they are a transitional living facility, despite meeting the definition in 43A O.S. 3-403 in my opinion. The facility is within a thousand feet of a school, which is prohibited under 43A O.S. 3-417.1 if the facility is in fact a 'transitional living facility". Now the school and the neighboring property owners are throwing a fit and wanting the city to take action. The second issue with the facility is that it is zoned single family. They claim that the planning and zoning definition is unconstitutional in that it requires that the household of a single family residence be related by blood - obviously this definition is problematic and the municipality has created a commission to update the planning and zoning regs since they have not been changed since their adoption in the early 80s.

My real issue is that the facility's attorney, in addition to the above, claims that they have additional protections under the ADA and maybe under other federal law - he was unable to provide any specific citations at the time of our conversation. I know that individuals with addiction are subject to ADA protections, but I am not sure about the facility itself. Regardless, the city hasn't passed any ordinance or regulation directed at facilities of this kind. I feel like the most appropriate approach if litigation is pursued is to file an injunction and argue that the facility is a transitional living facility and that they are within 1,000 feet of a school in contravention of state law. But how would the ADA interplay with this scenario? Are there any thoughts on how to approach this situation - any pitfalls to going after a facility like this?

Phillip N. Morton, J.D.
P.O. Box 1886
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 580-759-0049
Fax: 580-759-2177
Email: MortonLawOffice@gmail.commailto:MortonLawOffice@gmail.com

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail transmission, as well as any attachments, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this email or by calling 580-759-0049.
<zonememo.pdf>

Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama-leave@lists.imla.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.