Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
2018-03-01

Other Sections in This Document (36)

Full Text

1,405 chars
afford its clients (i.e., the handicapped popula-
          tion that it wishes to serve) an equal oppor-
          tunity to use and enjoy housing, [while] a de-
          fendant municipality is in the best position to
          provide evidence concerning what is reasonable
          or unreasonable within the context of the zon-
          ing scheme.”
Id. at 783 n.5 (alteration in original) (quoting Lapid-Laurel,
L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 284 F.3d 442, 458 (3d Cir.
2002)).
    Here, the CPU sought by plaintiffs would afford the Noble
Home residents an equal opportunity to establish a residen-
tial home. See Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784. “Often, a commu-
nity-based residential facility provides the only means by
which disabled persons can live in a residential neighbor-
hood, either because they need more supportive services, for
financial reasons, or both.” Id. Thus, “[w]hen a zoning author-
ity refuses to reasonably accommodate these small group liv-
ing facilities, it denies disabled persons an equal opportunity
to live in the community of their choice.” Id.
    The City counters that plaintiffs are not seeking an equal
opportunity to enjoy a dwelling. Interpreting the definition of
“family” found in § 155.001 of the Code, the City claims “there
is no provision under [the City’s] zoning code for three unre-
lated non-disabled adults to live in a single family home.”10