City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34 N.Y.2d 300 (1974)
A group home consisting of a married couple, their children, and a number of foster children, functioning as a single housekeeping unit, qualifies as a “family” for the purposes of a zoning ordinance, even if the relationships are not based on blood or adoption.
Summary
The City of White Plains sought to enforce its zoning ordinance to prevent the operation of a group home for foster children in a single-family residential zone. Abbott House, a licensed child care agency, leased a house for a married couple, their two children, and ten foster children. The city argued that this arrangement was not a single-family use but either a philanthropic institution or a boarding house, both prohibited in the zone. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s summary judgment for the city, holding that the group home, operating as a single housekeeping unit and resembling a traditional family, fell within the zoning ordinance’s definition of “family.”
Facts
Abbott House, a state-licensed child care agency, established a group home in White Plains, New York. The group home consisted of a married couple (the Seards), their two children, and ten foster children (seven siblings and three unrelated children). Abbott House leased a house owned by the Ferraiolis in an R-2 single-family zone. The Seards were paid a salary, and all household expenses were covered by Abbott House. The children lived together as siblings, and the household functioned as a single housekeeping unit with shared kitchen facilities.
Procedural History
The City of White Plains sued Abbott House and the Ferraiolis to enforce its zoning ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted summary judgment to the defendants, Abbott House and the Ferraiolis, dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether a group home, consisting of a married couple, their children, and ten foster children living together as a single housekeeping unit, constitutes a “family” within the meaning of a zoning ordinance restricting land use to single-family dwellings.
Holding
Yes, because the group home is structured as a single housekeeping unit and functions as a relatively normal, stable, and permanent family unit, thus meeting the zoning ordinance’s intent to promote a family environment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the zoning ordinance’s purpose was to promote a stable, uncongested, single-family environment. The group home, designed to emulate a traditional family and function as a single housekeeping unit, was consistent with this purpose. The court distinguished the group home from temporary living arrangements like college students sharing a house or a commune, emphasizing the permanency and community ties fostered by the group home. The court stated, “So long as the group home bears the generic character of a family unit as a relatively permanent household, and is not a framework for transients or transient living, it conforms to the purpose of the ordinance.”
The Court acknowledged that while a city could properly limit a zone to single-family units, it could not define “family” in a way that requires relationships based on blood or adoption. The court referenced several cases, including Kirsch Holding Co. v. Borough of Manasquan, to support the idea that zoning should control housing types, not internal family relationships. The Court noted that, “Zoning is intended to control types of housing and living and not the genetic or intimate internal family relations of human beings.”
The Court also mentioned the defendants’ argument that prohibiting group homes would contravene the state’s Social Services Law, which authorizes licensed agencies to establish group homes. However, because the Court found that the group home was a family, it did not need to address this argument. The Court concluded that, as a matter of law, the group home was a family and granted summary judgment to the defendants.