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

1,910 chars

separation requirement from which Ohio House sought an
exception is fundamental to achieving these goals. Giebeler,
343 F.3d at 1157. Indeed, Ohio House does not dispute the
importance of the separation requirement to the City’s
zoning scheme. Instead, it contends that this “categorical and
rigid rule[]” from which the City refuses to grant any
accommodation is inherently at odds with the City’s
obligation to conduct an “‘individualized inquiry’ to
determine whether the requested accommodation [is
reasonable].”
    As support, Ohio House cites a Sixth Circuit case for the
principle that “making an exception to a zoning scheme to
permit something that would normally be forbidden [does
not] automatically amount[] to a fundamental alteration.”
Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir.
2015). At issue in Anderson was whether a disabled
individual should be granted an accommodation from an
animal restriction applicable in residential zones. Id. at 346.
In rejecting the City’s argument that it was entitled to
summary judgment on the basis that the accommodation was
unreasonable as a matter of law, the court noted that “[w]hile
protecting public health and property values are central to
the City’s interests,” there was evidence that one otherwise
disallowed animal would “not create unsanitary conditions
or devalue her neighbors’ property.” Id. at 363.
    Anderson is distinguishable from the present case in
which we are reviewing a jury verdict. Unlike the one-off
request in Anderson for an exception to an animal restriction,
here Ohio House ultimately disputes as unlawful the City’s
denial of permits for over 20 existing group homes located
in residential zones. As previously stated, although
“routinely waiv[ing]” a specific zoning requirement
suggests that it is not fundamental to a municipality’s land-
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA          59

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text