Group Homes and Zoning Laws

Facts of the Case

Courage to Change Ranches Holding Company, now known as Soaring Hope Recovery Center, was a treatment provider for persons with substance use disorders. In Fall 2014, Soaring Hope began renting a home on Spruce Road in El Paso County, Colorado to provide housing and operate a treatment program for individuals recovering from addiction. In April 2016, a special-use permit was submitted by Soaring Hope to El Paso County, which detailed Soaring Hope’s operations. The county responded that Soaring Hope’s current operations were “categorized as a rehabilitation facility” (Change, p 1182) and not a group home for disabled persons (which was the current classification). The county determined that the Spruce Road home violated the code, and an enforcement file was opened. Soaring Hope was given the option to appeal the decision, apply for a variance, or “bring the use into compliance by eliminating the rehabilitation facility uses and bringing the use and number of residents into compliance with a group home use” (Change, p 1183). In August 2016, the county issued a notice of violation to Soaring Hope for operating a rehabilitation facility in a residential area. Soaring Hope then moved all therapies and most activities to its commercial office.

During a zoning hearing in October 2016, the county asked Soaring Hope to agree to a “stipulation to settle the zoning dispute” (Change, p 1184). Under the stipulation, Soaring Hope would agree that it violated the code and agree to “curtail any rehabilitation facility uses immediately” (Change, p 1184). In exchange, the county agreed “to allow Soaring Hope time to file a variance application and to work with the County to identify appropriate uses of the Spruce Road home” (Change, p 1184-5). Soaring Hope agreed with the stipulation and ultimately elected to come into full compliance with the code as a group home in November 2016. In February 2018, the enforcement case for the Spruce Road home was closed as Soaring Hope had “complied with the terms of the Stipulation” (Change, p 1185). Soaring Hope faced increased financial hardship following the zoning dispute and stipulation in 2016. The Spruce Road home closed in May 2019.

Soaring Hope sued El Paso County in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging 12 total claims, including intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the FHAA, ADA, and RA. Under the FHAA, Soaring Hope also claimed interference, coercion, or intimidation, “challenged the County’s actions under the Equal Protection Clause, and it challenged the County’s code as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” (Change, p 1185).

The district court granted summary judgment to the county for most of the claims, including the claim that the county “intentionally discriminated against it by ‘zoning out’ all rehabilitation facilities” (Change, p 1186). The district court did not grant summary judgment to either side regarding Soaring Hope’s facial discrimination claims concerning the Code’s occupancy limits. Instead, these facial discrimination claims went on to a jury trial, at which the jury found that Soaring Hope “had not proven its FHAA or ADA claims against the County by a preponderance of the evidence” (Change, p 1186). The district court subsequently entered judgment for the county. Soaring Hope appealed on multiple grounds.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judgment on facial discrimination regarding occupancy limits and disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the county on Soaring Hope’s “zoning-out” claim. It reversed and remanded the district court to address the argument for discrimination.

In determining the merits of Soaring Hope’s discrimination challenge to the Code’s occupancy limits, the Tenth Circuit compared the Code’s treatment of “group housing for disabled persons to its treatment of similarly situated groups” (Change, p 1193). Soaring Hope and the County disagreed on the relevant comparator for this determination. Soaring Hope argued that relevant comparators are “group homes for the aged and other categories of structured group-living arrangements in the code” (Change, p 1193), and the county maintained that relevant comparators are “groups of unrelated roommates,” which the code limited to five per dwelling.

On examination of the county’s code, the Tenth Circuit found that group homes for disabled persons were treated “much more like group homes for the aged than like groups of five unrelated roommates” (Change, p 1194). Furthermore, on review of the Colorado Revised Statute §30-28-115 (2014), the Tenth Circuit noted that “apparently the County found it necessary to honor the ‘eight persons’ language in §30-28-115 for group homes for the aged but not for group homes for persons with developmental disabilities or mental illnesses” (Change, p 1195). The Tenth Circuit concluded that the county’s code “‘single[s] out’ disabled persons by applying five-person occupancy limits to group homes for disabled persons while allowing eight or more occupants in all other structured group-living arrangements” (Change, p 1196) and that “the County has failed to adequately justify that discrimination” (Change, p 1199).

Regarding the “zoning out” claim, the Tenth Circuit examined Soaring Hope’s argument that the county zoned out rehabilitation facilities from residential areas and the county “relied on the rehabilitation-facility definition to prohibit therapeutic activities in the Spruce Road home while allowing those same activities in other structured group-living arrangements and single-family homes” (Change, p 1202). The Tenth Circuit observed that the district court had granted summary judgment to the county based on Soaring Hope’s failure to identify other treatment facilities in residential areas. But it noted that the district court did not address the second part of the argument regarding the county’s use of the rehabilitation facility definition to prohibit therapeutic activities otherwise allowed in single-family homes and group-living arrangements.

The Tenth Circuit reasoned that, to establish a discrimination case, Soaring Hope would need to “establish that the County treated it differently from a similarly situated group of nondisabled persons” (Change, p 1202). It noted that single-family homes were allowed to “hold civic meetings and receive treatment from doctors, nurses, and mental-health professionals in their homes without violating the Code” (Change, p 1203). Additionally, the code allowed for “fitness instructors, physical therapists, doctors, nurses, and mental-health professionals to work with residents in structured group-living arrangements, including group homes for the aged” (Change, p 1203). But, to comply with the code, Soaring Hope was “forced to relocate all its therapies−including mental-health therapies and yoga−to a commercial zoning area” (Change, p 1203). The Tenth Circuit concluded that Soaring Hope had established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the County discriminated against it by prohibiting certain activities. It reversed and remanded the district court to address the argument.