## Facts

- Joseph L. Howard owned and lived in a single-family home in Beavercreek, Ohio, with his family since 1984.
- Howard had post-traumatic stress disorder and a heart condition and believed neighbors were watching his family, increasing his stress.
- He sought to build a six-foot privacy fence along the west side of his lot up to the street to increase privacy and reduce stress.
- The city zoning ordinance generally permitted six-foot fencing, but barred a six-foot fence within the first forty feet from the street right-of-way unless a variance was granted.
- Howard applied for a variance and submitted a physician letter supporting the fence as helpful to his conditions.
- After a public hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance.
- Howard sued, alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and Ohio fair housing law based on failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City; Howard appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether denying a zoning variance for a six-foot privacy fence constituted a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation “necessary” to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
2. Whether the same denial violated Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H), construed consistently with the FHAA.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- Even assuming the requested fence could be “reasonable,” Howard failed to show it was “necessary” to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling.
- The court found the medical support was equivocal and did not establish that absence of the fence would likely deny Howard the ability to live in the home of his choice.
- Because the federal claim failed, the parallel Ohio statutory claims failed as well.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), discrimination includes refusing reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when the accommodation may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- “Necessary” requires more than showing the accommodation would be helpful; the plaintiff must show a sufficient connection between the requested change and equal housing opportunity, including that denial would likely deprive the person of the ability to live in the housing of choice.
- Speculative or conditional medical evidence (e.g., that a measure “might” help) may be insufficient to create a triable issue on necessity.
- Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H) is interpreted in parallel with the FHAA for reasonable-accommodation claims arising from housing-related rules, including zoning.

## Conclusion

The court held that the FHAA did not require Beavercreek to grant a front-yard fence-height variance where the plaintiff did not present evidence that the variance was necessary, rather than merely beneficial, to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his home; the state-law claims failed under the same analysis.


Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 276 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2002)