Addressing the Impact of Requests to Keep Emotional Support Animals under Disability Law on Local Zoning Decisions

Like many local governments throughout Michigan, your municipality may regulate the number and type of animals permitted within residential districts through its zoning ordinance. In recent years, municipalities have faced an increasing number of requests from residents for exceptions or modifications from local zoning and nuisance regulations to keep emotional support animals. While many of these requests involve exceeding limits on numbers of household pets, some municipalities have encountered requests to keep animals not otherwise allowed within a zoning district, such as livestock, poultry, exotic birds, and other animals. As these requests become more common, local officials often find themselves wondering how they balance enforcement of generally applicable ordinance provisions with the Township’s obligations under federal and state disability laws.

The Federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”) both provide individuals with disabilities with important protections in the context of housing. Under these acts, municipalities are required to make reasonable accommodations to their policies, practices, or procedures for individuals with disabilities in certain circumstances, including their zoning ordinances. In order to qualify for a reasonable accommodation from a zoning ordinance under the FHA and PWDCRA, an applicant need not meet the requirements for a use variance. Instead, when contemplating a request for a reasonable accommodation, the Zoning Board of Appeals must engage in a highly-fact specific analysis of whether the proposed accommodation for the particular applicant is both reasonable and necessary to afford the person with a disability an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.

A recent case decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals provides important guidance regarding how local governments should approach requests to keep emotional support animals that are otherwise impermissible under the zoning ordinance. In Carroll v City of Taylor, a property owner who suffered from Huntington’s Disease kept 11 chickens, a dog, two cats, a macaw, and a parrot on his property. He was issued a civil infraction for violating the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which limited the number and type of animals that could be kept on a residential property. After receiving the citation, the property owner petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance to be allowed to keep his animals on his property. He sought a variance to keep them as emotional support animals under the FHA, alleging that he suffered from depression and anxiety that was alleviated by caring for the animals. In support of his claim, he presented several letters from his doctors regarding his disability and in support of his requested accommodation.

Rather than discussing the merits of the property owner’s request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA, the Zoning Board of Appeals focused on technical insufficiencies in the doctor’s letters, including a lack of signature and failure to include a medical license number in the letters, in its denial of the request. The Zoning Board of Appeals also expressed a general concern about the animals causing potential health or rodent issues. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to make findings on the merits of the property owner’s request as supported by his medical documentation. The Court explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals was required to assess the reasonableness of the accommodation by weighing the burden on the local government with the benefit to the homeowner. The Zoning Board of Appeals had failed to engage in any analysis of the benefits to the property owner or burdens to the local government by focusing only on minor technical deficiencies in the application materials and by only offering speculation about potential health concerns.

This case is an important reminder for municipalities to consider the requirements of state and federal statutes when deciding on requests from property owners for reasonable accommodations. When residents assert a disability-related need for an animal that would otherwise violate a township ordinance, municipalities should engage in individualized analysis of the necessity and reasonableness of the request, assess any health, safety or other undue burdens to the municipality, and make written findings addressing whether the requested accommodation is necessary and reasonable.

If your municipality has questions regarding its obligations under federal and state disability law, please contact a lawyer in our Municipal Practice Group.