The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,901 chars

treatment. A straightforward way to show benefit is to
demonstrate that the challenged regulations treat disabled
individuals more favorably than similarly situated
nondisabled individuals. See Sailboat Bend Sober Living,
LLC v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 46 F.4th 1268, 1274 (11th
Cir. 2022) (“Because the Zoning Ordinance undeniably
treats individuals with disabilities more favorably than it
treats similarly situated, nondisabled individuals, we
conclude that the Zoning Ordinance is not facially
discriminatory at all.”). Indeed, it is difficult to
conceptualize a “benefit” without some baseline for
comparison. There may be other ways to demonstrate
benefit, even in a facial challenge, but a comparator analysis
is certainly a permissible way.
    In this case, the City’s zoning code benefits the disabled
over the nondisabled with regard to group-living facilities.
For example, group homes and sober-living homes with six
or fewer residents may operate in R1 zones if they meet
permitting and separation requirements. See CMMC § 13-
30. But boardinghouses of any size are categorically barred
from operating in R1 zones. See id. Of course, group and
sober-living homes would receive an even greater benefit if
they could operate in R1 zones without meeting any
requirements. But Community House does not require proof
that the defendant’s challenged policy provides the protected
class with the maximum possible benefit. And Ohio House
cannot use certain provisions of the zoning code as a sword
while crying foul when the City uses intertwined provisions
as a shield. The City’s permitting and separation
requirements applicable to group homes located in R1 zones
impose a burden, but they also give facilities housing the
disabled an avenue for operating in these zones that is
unavailable under any circumstances to similar group-living
24        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text