Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 18 IAG applied for a CPU to allow the Property owners and IAG to operate the family care residence at the Noble home. The CPU included a request for a reasonable accommodation to the City's rules. IAG argued that, since the Noble home operated in all respects like a single- family home and less than five people resided in the home, the Noble home should be treated as a "family" under the Code and should not be required to seek zoning approval through a CPU. The Code defined a "family" as: "One or more persons each related to one another by blood, marriage, or adoption, or is a group of not more than five persons not all so related occupying a single dwelling unit which is not a boarding- house or lodging house as defined in this section," In any case, IAG argued that the City should grant it a CPU because the Noble home met all CPU criteria and had not adversely affected the surrounding community. The City Council denied IAG's CPU based on the fact that the Noble home did not meet the family care residence 600-foot spacing rule. IAG and A.D., through his next friend and legal guardian, Mary B. Valencia, (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") sued the City. Among other things, they alleged that the City Code's 600-foot spacing requirement for family care residences was discriminatory in violation of the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601- 3631. "Discriminatory action under the FHA may be shown in three ways: (1) by proof of discriminatory intent; (2) by evidence showing that a defendant's actions had a disparate impact on the select group; or (3) by showing that a defendant failed to make a reasonable accommodation." Here, the Plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on disparate treatment and reasonable accommodation; theories. Specifi- cally, they alleged that the rule violated the FHA's prohibition on discrimination based on handicap. They also alleged that the City's denial of the CPU violated the FHA's reasonable accommodation provision. The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to avoid eviction of A.D. and the other residents of the Noble home while the case was pending. DECISION: Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction granted. The United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to their request for preliminary injunction because they had demonstrated "a likelihood of success on the merits" and that they would "suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," and that an injunction was "in the public interest." In so holding, the court first concluded that the Plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits of showing that the City Code's 600-foot spacing requirement for family care residences was invalid under the FHA. The court said this was because the © 2017 Thomson Reuters 7