Use variance to keep additional animals; Substantial, competent, & material evidence; Reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA); “Handicap” discrimination prohibition; 42 USC §§ 3604(f)(1) & (3)(b); Hollis v Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n (6th Cir); Whether the circuit court should have ordered further proceedings before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); MCR 7.122(G)(1)(b); MCL 125.3606(2)

The court held that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the decision by respondent-City’s ZBA to deny petitioner’s use “variance was not based on substantial, competent, and material evidence.” But it found that the circuit court erred in reversing the ZBA’s decision and not ordering further proceedings before the ZBA. Petitioner sought the variance to keep animals on his property in excess of the City’s zoning ordinance limit. In addition to a dog, two cats, a macaw, and a parrot, he had 11 chickens. He sought the variance as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA related to his Huntington’s disease. He provided “three letters from two different doctors regarding his disability and in support of his requested accommodation.” Instead of discussing the merits of his request, “the ZBA focused on the lack of signature on one of the letters and the failure to include a medical license number on the others.” The court found that “the manner in which the ZBA summarily dismissed petitioner’s medical evidence suggests that its findings were not based on the evidence before it and that the ZBA did not properly consider” the request. The disregarded medical evidence “was important when determining whether [he] was entitled to an accommodation under the FHA. The letters” showed that he “had a disability and his medical providers had prescribed emotional support animals to alleviate physical, mental, and emotional problems he experienced because of” it. The court concluded the ZBA’s decision did not reflect that it “weighed the benefits and burdens of the proposed accommodation because the ZBA highlighted only minor technical deficiencies for disregarding the” medical providers’ opinions. The “circuit court did not misapprehend or grossly misapply the substantial evidence test.” But the ZBA’s lack of findings “on whether petitioner’s requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary warrants further proceedings before the ZBA and not simply reversal of” its decision. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded “with directions to the circuit court to order further proceedings before the ZBA.”