## Facts

- Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. operated a licensed residential group home for elderly persons with disabilities in an 11-bedroom house in Columbia, Maryland, owned and occupied by Richard Colandrea and his mother.
- Under Howard County zoning rules, a resident family could house up to eight disabled persons (or persons 62 or older) as of right if the use was properly registered, licensed, or certified.
- The operator sought to expand capacity from eight to fifteen residents; state approval was conditioned on obtaining local zoning approval for housing more than eight residents.
- County zoning classified facilities serving more than eight residents as “nursing homes,” triggering requirements including off-street parking of one space per two beds; the property could provide only about five to six spaces.
- At a public hearing, neighbors described recurring overflow parking and related traffic congestion associated with staff and visitors.
- Evidence indicated approximately thirty similar licensed group homes operated in the county within the eight-resident limit.
- The Howard County Planning Board denied the requested variance based on parking/traffic impacts and its view that the denial would not materially limit housing opportunities for disabled persons.

## Issues

1. Whether denying a zoning variance to expand a disabled group home from eight to fifteen residents was a refusal to make a “reasonable accommodation” required by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
2. Whether the requested accommodation was “necessary” to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
3. Whether granting the requested variance would be “reasonable” or instead would impose undue burdens or fundamentally alter the county’s land-use scheme.
4. Whether the prevailing county was entitled to attorneys’ fees.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Howard County.
- The court held the Inn failed to show the expansion was a necessary accommodation tied to residents’ disabilities rather than to the operator’s economic interests.
- The court held the accommodation was not required where the county already permitted disabled group homes up to eight residents as of right and many such homes existed.
- The court concluded the requested variance was not reasonable in light of documented parking and traffic concerns and the county’s neutral zoning requirements for larger facilities.
- The court denied the county’s request for attorneys’ fees because the Inn’s claim was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA treats as discrimination the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.  
- An accommodation is “necessary” only if there is a direct connection between the requested change and mitigating the effects of the disability so as to provide equal housing opportunity.
- The FHA requires equal, not superior or preferential, housing opportunities for disabled persons.
- An accommodation is not “reasonable” if it would impose undue financial or administrative burdens or require a fundamental alteration of a government program, including a comprehensive zoning scheme.
- The FHA does not displace legitimate, facially neutral land-use regulation; localities may rely on concrete health, safety, traffic, and parking impacts in applying neutral zoning rules.
- A prevailing defendant may recover attorneys’ fees only if the plaintiff’s civil-rights claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Fair Housing Act did not compel Howard County to waive neutral zoning and parking rules to permit a group home’s expansion from eight to fifteen residents where the operator did not show the increase was necessary to provide disabled persons equal housing opportunity and the record supported legitimate parking and traffic concerns; the county’s fee request was denied.


Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cnty., 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 1997)