Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)

Citation: Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Parent Document: Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-03-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4473714/mary-valencia-v-city-of-springfield/ ↗

Full Text

1,814 chars

lines of the Noble home and the Sparc home are separated
by only 157 feet.
    In August 2016, the City notified the Hoveys that a com-
plaint had been filed because the Noble home was located
within 600 feet of the Sparc home, in violation of § 155.053 of
the Code. The City thus informed the Hoveys that the Noble
home residents would be evicted unless the Hoveys applied
for a Conditional Permitted Use (“CPU”). Under the Code,
“[a]ny family care residence … not in compliance with
[§ 155.053] … may seek a conditional permitted use under …
the zoning ordinance.” Id. To qualify for a CPU, a family care
residence must establish that: (1) “the proposed location and
use will not have any adverse impact upon residents of
nearby facilities when located within 600 feet of another such
facility”; and (2) “[t]he proposed location will not have any
detrimental affect [sic] upon existing privacy, light or envi-
ronment of surrounding residences.” Id. § 155.211.1.
    On October 7, 2016, the Hoveys and IAG submitted a
joint CPU application. On November 10, 2016, the Spring-
field-Sangamon County Regional Planning Commission
(“the County Commission”) recommended the CPU be de-
nied because “[t]he evidence provided in the petition [did]
not provide sufficient detail to allow staff to make a reason-
able determination whether the design and method of oper-
ation of the proposed use [would] minimize the adverse ef-
fects on the character of the surrounding area.”
   On November 16, 2016, the Springfield Zoning and Plan-
ning Commission (“the Springfield Commission”) held a
public hearing. At the hearing, Dr. Charlene Bennett, IAG’s
executive director, testified that when the Noble home
opened, IAG was not aware of the Sparc home across the
6                                                 No. 17-2773

Other Sections in This Document (36)

Full Text