\ G, Poun, ESQ. 3034 Tennyson St, N.W. amg sine Sn, Be 2015 ‘Tex (202) 331-5848 Fax (202) 537-2986 SrouN2@EARTHLINE NET December 10, 2010 SENT VIA FIRST ELECTRONIC MEANS AND FIRST CLASS MATL. James 8. Tanner Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Ansonia 253 Main Street Ansonia, CT 06401 RE: Building Permit Regional Network of Programs, Inc. 158 Main Street Dear Mr. Tanner T have been requested by John Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Network of Programs, Inc.“RNP”) to contact you concerning your refusal to issue a building permit to his organization so that it can take occupancy of 158 Main Street so it may begin providing treatment and counseling services to persons with opiate addictions. According to Mr. Hamilton and to the accounts I read in the local newspaper, the refusal to issue a building permit is based upon Schedule B of the City’s zoning code which details permitted uses. ‘The building that RNP is located in amedical zone which allows the following as a permitted use: “Medical and dental clinics for the performance of dentistry and healing arts for patients not resident on the premises but expressly excluding clinics for the insane, alcoholics and drug addicts,” The exclusions listed violate Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12131-12165, which prohibits discrimination based on a disability by a public entity, including discrimination in the zoning context. The clients of RNP are considered to be persons with & disability as that term is defined by the ADA. The exclusion of clinics for “the insane, alcoholics and drug addicts” is a classification that is facially invalid under the ADA. Ordinances that apply only to individuals with disabilities are facially discriminatory, Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1500-01 (10th Cir. 1995) ("Here, the Act and the Orem ordinance facially single out the handicapped and apply different rules to them. Thus, the discriminatory intent and purpose of the Act and Ordinance are apparent on their faoe.") Thus, it is unlawful for a local government to treat a substance abuse treatment program differently from other health or medical care services. If health or medical services are permitted in certain zoning districts, those same zoning districts should permit substance abuse treatmentJames 8. Tanner December 10, 2010 facilities, This is considered facial discrimination and/or disparate impact discrimination. Pathways ¥. Town of Leonardtown, 133 F. Supp. 24772, 777-78 (D. Md. 2001)(defendants' interpretation of a psychiatric rehabilitation program as a "schoo!" or “adult day care facility" instead of an "office" and/or "medical office" raised a triable issue of fact that the Commission's decision was due to impermissible discrimination), Smith-Berch v. Baltimore County, 68 F. Supp. 2d 602, 621-23 (D. ‘Md. 1999) and 115 F. Supp. 2d 520, 524 (D. Md. 2000) ) vacated on other grounds, Smith-Berch, Inc. v, Baltimore County, 64 Fed. Appx. 887 (4th Cir.2003)(imposing a hearing requirement on a methadone facility whereas no such requirement was imposed on other medical facilities had a discriminatory impact on programs for people with addictions and was therefore a violation of federal law). See also, MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 345 (6th Cir. 2002)(finding that the prohibition of all methadone clinics from the entire city is discriminatory on its face), Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 737 (9th Cir.1999)(finding that ordinance restricting placement of methadone clinics was discriminatory on its face); Innovative Health Sys. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 197). Both RNP and its clients are protected by the ADA. The ADA contemplates that individuals participating in drug rehabilitation programs, who are no longer using drugs or presumably impaired by their effects, are covered by the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12210(b).' Moreover, by including recovering drug addicts among those to be protected under the ADA, Congress recognized "that ‘many people continue to participate in drug treatment programs long after they have stopped using drugs illegally, and that such persons should be protected under the Act." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-596, at 64, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 267, 573 (emphasis added). Congress recognized that well after drug addicted individuals have recovered from the effects of their drug addiction by participating in drug treatment programs, such as the one at issue in this case, these individuals might still face discrimination and be entitled to protection under the ADA. Id. MX Group, Ine. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d at 339 (6th Cir. Ky. 2002)( Consequently, we cannot agree with Defendants, that in the context ofa drug addiction impairment, merely because methadone has the intended effect of ameliorating the addiction, recovering drug addicts lose all protection under the ADA. Thestatute itself belies any such contention.) am requesting that you issue the building permit to RNP no later than December 17, 2010. If I do not receive a response from you by then, I will assume that the City does not intend to "This Section provides that a person is not exeluded under the ADA where he or she: "(1) has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no longer engaging in such use; (2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer ‘engaging in such use; or (3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use but is not engaging in such use... .." 42 U.S.C. § 12210(6).James 8. Tanner December 10, 2010 discontinue its discriminatory acts. If am required to seek relief in the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, I will be seeking injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages, and attorney's fees, Also, please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter. ce: John Hamilton Greg Kirschner