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

1,324 chars

can defeat an FHA claim, even if it did not in Community
House itself. See id. at 1051. 1
    Here, the district court concluded that because the City’s
zoning regulations treated group homes and sober living
homes differently from boardinghouses, Ohio House
established a prima facie claim of facial discrimination. But
this conclusion was wrong: although Ohio House established
that the relevant ordinances treated Ohio House and
boardinghouses differently, Ohio House failed to prove that
the treatment was less favorable, and therefore
discriminatory. To the contrary, group homes and sober
living homes get more favorable treatment than
boardinghouses. Under the relevant zoning regulations,
small boardinghouses (those with two rooms or fewer) may
operate in multi-family residential districts (MFR zones),
subject to a 650-foot separation requirement. Costa Mesa
Municipal Code (CMMC) § 13-30 (tbl. n.4). Large
boardinghouses (those with three to six rooms) may operate
in MFR zones with a conditional-use permit (CUP), subject
to a 1,000-foot separation requirement. Id. (tbl. n.5). Group
homes and sober living homes seeking to operate in MFR
zones must obtain different permits. Id. (tbl. nn.7 & 7.1).
Maj. Op. 11–12. But this does not mean that boardinghouses
get more favorable treatment than group home or sober

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text