Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 7 Citation: Valencia v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 2018 WL 1095954 (7th Cir. 2018) The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. SEVENTH CIRCUIT (ILLINOIS) (03/01/18)—This case ad- dressed the issue of whether residents and operators of a "family care residence," which housed disabled individuals, showed a "rea- sonable likelihood of success" on their claim that the city, in denying their requested conditional permitted use to operate the family care residence within 600 feet of another such facility, failed to make a reasonable accommodation for the disabled residents in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. The Background/Facts: Christine and Robyn Hovey (the "Hov- eys") owned a single-family dwelling in a residential district in the City of Springfield (the "City"). Beginning in March 2014, the Hoveys began renting their home to three disabled individuals, who were all clients of Individual Advocacy Group, Inc. ("IAG"), a non- profit organization that provided residential services to adults with disabilities. Under the City's zoning code (the "Code"), the residential district in which the Hoveys' home was located allowed both single-family detached residences and family care residences. The Code defined "family care residences" as a single-family dwelling unit occupied "in a family -like environment by a group of no more than six unre- lated persons with disabilities, plus paid professional support staff provided by a sponsoring agency . . . , and compli[ant] with the zoning regulations for the district in which the site is located." The Code restricted family care residences to a zoning lot located "more than 600 feet from the property line of any other such facility." However, the Code allowed non -compliant family care residences to qualify for a Conditional Permitted Use ("CPU") if the family care residence: (1) would not have any adverse impact upon residents of nearby facilities; and (2) would not have any detrimental effect upon "privacy, light, or environment" of surrounding residences. In August 2016, the City notified the Hoveys that their home was located within 600 feet of another family care residence. The Hoveys had previously been unaware that a family care residence had been operating across the street —and within 157 feet —of their home for approximately 12 years. The City informed the Hoveys that the residents of their home would be evicted unless the Hoveys applied for and received a CPU. In October 2016, the Hoveys and IAG submitted a joint applica- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3